Judges In Seattle and Boston Reach Opposing Opinions On Trump Executive Order

washington-westernmassdcThe controversy over the Trump immigration executive order has already produced sharply conflicting orders from courts in Washington state and Massachusetts. A judge in Seattle has issued a temporary restraining order nationwide over the executive order while a judge in Boston declined to do so. Such divergent results are not uncommon in such controversies. However, as I have previously explained, I believe that the law favors the Administration despite good-faith arguments advanced by the challengers. Moreover, even if courts strike down a portion of the executive order, it is likely that other portions will be upheld on review. While I have been very critical of the order (and how it was rolled out), I still believe that the weight of binding authority on these trial courts favors President Trump.  We should get an answer sooner than expected: the Administration has decided to ask for an emergency order from the Ninth Circuit to block the Seattle court.  In the meantime, the airlines have been told to start to allow people on planes to the United States and the Justice Department is apparently not filing the emergency motion tonight. That means that people will start to arrive before the Justice Department files.  It could look a bit curious that the Administration is claiming a national security danger in these entries but would wait to file the emergency motion.

District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton in Massachusetts issued his decision on Friday and found that the president had the authority to issue the executive order.  Gorton wrote “While this Court is sympathetic to the difficult personal circumstances in which these plaintiffs find themselves, if they choose to leave the country, as nonresident aliens, they have no right to re-enter.”

The order from the Western District of Washington did not contain any legal analysis or explanation. Rather U.S. District Court Senior Judge James L. Robart stated that he would release an opinion at a later date. Nevertheless, the order granting a temporary restraining order was a clear victory for challengers. To prevail, a party seeking “must establish that [it] is likely to succeed on the merits, that [it] is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in [its] favor, and that [a temporary restraining order] is in the public interest.” Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). On top of that demanding standard, courts tend to be more exacting when an order targets the exercise of a core executive function. Adams v. Vance, 570 F.2d 950, 954-55 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (requiring “an extraordinarily strong showing” when an order would “deeply intrude[] into the core concerns of the executive branch.”). Moreover, Judge Robart’s recognition of the right of the state attorney general to bring the case is itself controversial given prior standing rulings.

Ironically, Democratic attorneys general are seeking the ability to sue over precedent established not by President Trump but President Obama. The Obama Administration argued for years that a president had virtually unchecked authority at our borders and specifically that states like Arizona did not have the right to interfere or countermand federal immigration policies. See Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2502 (2012). The case law heavily disfavors a state from bringing a parens patriae action on behalf of citizens, let alone non-citizens. Moreover, the complaint by the Washington Attorney General advanced highly speculative claims of injury given (1) the exemption of green card holders, (2) the temporary character of the order; and (3) the loose claims of reduction in tourism and student visas. The complaint states that the order affords the state standing due to its

“separating Washington families, harming thousands of Washington residents, damaging Washington’s economy, hurting Washington-based companies, and undermining Washington’s sovereign interest in remaining a welcoming place for immigrants and refugees.”

Putting aside injury, there remains the question of the likelihood of prevailing given the statutory and case authority favoring executive power in this area. As previously discussed, Section 1182 (f) expressly allows a president to exclude individual aliens or groups of aliens when the Administration determines that entry of such aliens or class of aliens would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” The Ninth Circuit (which covers Seattle and issues cases that are binding on Judge Robart) has held that “that statute specifically grants the President, where it is in the national interest to do so, the extreme power to prevent the entry of any alien or groups of aliens into this country as well as the lesser power to grant entry to such person or persons with any restriction on their entry as he may deem to be appropriate.” Mow Sun Wong v. Campbell, 626 F.2d 739, 744 n.9 (9th Cir. 1980).

Challengers rely on 8 U.S.C. §1152 (a) (1) (A), which states that “no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.” I have previously raised concerns about the sweeping claims made under this amendment which was part of an effort to end the use of numerical quotas that favored certain parts of Europe. On its face, the provision would not impact much of the executive order since it deals only with the issuance of visas and does not on its face apply to refugees or nonimmigrant visas. Moreover, the law was later amended to exclude changes in “procedures” even for those seeking immigrant visas. Section 1152(a)(1)(B) states that the law shall not be “construed to limit the authority of the Secretary of State to determine the procedures for the processing of immigrant visa applications or the locations where such applications will be processed.” That sounds a lot like an order temporarily suspending entries “to determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States” and then “implement such additional procedures.” Executive Order § 5 (a).

If Section 1152 and 1182 present a possible conflict, a court is supposed to adopt that interpretation that avoid the conflict. California ex rel. Sacramento Metro. Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. United States, 215 F.3d 1005, 1012 (9th Cir. 2000). Moreover, the degree to which this provision limits the executive power can itself produce a constitutional challenge . . . from the executive branch. I previously discussed cases like United States v. Curtiss-Wright Exp. Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936) and the Court recognition of plenary authority of the executive over foreign relations and our borders. The Court has specifically held that “The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty . . . inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 542 (1950).

Part of the difficulty of the challenger’s reading of future law is that it would prove too much. Specifically, it would mean that past actions by both presidents and Congress would be unlawful. It would suggest that, when a president finds that there is a danger related to entries from a particularly country, the president cannot suspend entries from that country. Yet, that is precisely what has happened in the past. In 1986, President Reagan suspended entry of Cuban nationals as immigrants into the United States, subject to certain exceptions. See Suspension of Cuban Immigration, 1986 WL 796773 (Aug. 22, 1986). In 1996, President Clinton suspended entry of members of the Government of Sudan, officials of that Government, and members of the Sudanese armed forces as immigrants or nonimmigrants into the United States. See Suspension of Entry as Immigrants and Nonimmigrants of Persons Who Are Members or Officials of the Sudanese Government or Armed Forces, 1996 WL 33673860 (Nov. 22, 1996). The Justice Department noted in its brief before Judge Robart that both Congress and President Obama made such nationality based determinations to exclude groups of aliens:

“Congress likewise has expressly drawn distinctions based on nationality. For example, in 2015, Congress amended the INA to exclude certain individuals from a visa waiver program (i.e., the ability to enter the United States as a nonimmigrant without a visa) on the basis of nationality. See Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-113, 129 Stat. 2242, 2990 (2015) (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1187(a)(12)). Congress expressly excluded nationals of Iraq and Syria from the program, see 8 U.S.C. § 1187(a)(12)(A)(ii), and created a process by which the Secretary of Homeland Security could designate additional “Countries or areas of concern,” for exclusion of a country’s nationals. See id. § 1187(a)(12)(D). As of February 2016, the exclusion applied to nationals of Iraq and Syria (pursuant to the statute’s plain text), as well as nationals of Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen (pursuant to Executive Branch designations under the statutory scheme). See Dep’t of Homeland Sec., DHS Announces Further Travel Restrictions for the Visa Waiver Program (Feb. 18, 2016). These seven countries excluded from the visa waiver program are the same seven countries that are covered by Section 3 of the President’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order. See Executive Order § 3(c) (incorporating by reference “countries referred to in section 217 (a) (12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187 (a) (12).”

None of this means that the challenges to the Executive Order are frivolous or that parts of the Executive Order could not be struck down. However, the weight of existing case law favors the Administration in my view. Courts are bound to avoid conflicts when possible in the interpretation of two laws and further interpret laws to avoid conflicts with constitutional powers. Moreover, they have a long-standing commitment to minimize the extent to which they find parts of a law unconstitutional. The result is that the odds still rest with the Administration in preserving all or part of the law, particularly after exercising its discretion to exempt green card holders.

122 thoughts on “Judges In Seattle and Boston Reach Opposing Opinions On Trump Executive Order”

  1. We need to get the f&ck out of the Middle East. But those who HAVE been vetted should be allowed in IMO. And those Iraqis, Kurds, Afghans, Pakis,Syrians, etc. who helped out the US during our interventionist bs should be given a safe haven – they put themselves at major risk under the Dubya AND Obummer administration and should be allowed in.

    1. The point of the EO is the those seven countries affected are, by and large, failed nation states where vetting is impossible or actively circumvented. Curiously — or. It so curiously — the press omits this fact.

      1. Exactly! I do background checks for a living. How in the HELL can you do a LEGIT background check on someone from those cluster coitus countries?? It is a LIE that it can be done. A DAMN LIE!

        1. Ask the State Department. The claim out of nowhere now is the Consulates and Embassies did or does the vetting. If they can’t answer then all of those are just toilet paper. Time for another investigation Mr. President and the State Department is once again the target for NSA.

    2. Trump claims he is carrying on with the Obama policies in the Mideast but appears to be turning to the right with the talk of war against Iran. it would be a terrible mistake to invade Iran. They actually have a strong military.

      1. Anon, I agree. Iran has been demonized for far too long. But Israel and the Sunni Sauds, UAE, etc. are behind this.

      2. We heard the same story about Iraq etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum. Take out their airfields and their four ports penetrator bombs on their nuke facilities…Turn the Kurds loose.

  2. I think the court should curtail the EO abuse. I think Obama abused it and Mr Trump has abused it as a legislating tool. I particularly think that this so called ban is Overbroad it reaches to far. I also think it’s in violation of the religious clause of the US Constitution.

    Muslim is a religion. Just because the Administration has scaled back its use with green card holders, it does not mean it won’t be used again.

  3. There was some weeny news article whicth appeared on Google news this a.m. about some husband and wife who are separated from their boy due to the ban on some immigrants. Well. Send them back to the boy forthwith.

  4. They clearly have been judge shopping, however the Ninth Circuit will not overturn it, unless by sheer luck you get the right panel.

    1. They’ve gotten more conservative but I agree you need the right group. However, if something happens and a refugee is the mass murderer, no judge will want that blood — or that criticism — on their hands.

      1. mespo – I used to help a paralyzed judge on the appeals circuit here in Phoenix, I was his trained monkey (got the books, opened them to the right page, put them back, etc). He told me the sometimes you just hold you nose and lock your doors after a you make a judgment.

          1. mespo – I would agree with you. Sometimes they decide on the answer and then find the law to fit.

  5. Oh, excuse me. I seem to have wandered into the sitting room in Bedlam quite by accident…

  6. Squeaky, She’s not kidding.

    “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of “liberalism,” they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform.”

    ― Norman Mattoon Thomas

    1. You are quoting directly a number of former Presidents and politicians. People like John Dewey, Woodrow Wilson, FDR etc. Some of the other terms are Darwinists, subjectivists, pragmatists, progressivists (the first of the terms) various flavors of socialists who change their names to suit the need of the moment.

      The only real definition of liberals and conservatives is a conservative is one of the party in power that digs in, fortifies, slows down any changes and uses any legal means to stay in power. The liberal is the outsider who wants it all wants it now and will use any and all means legal or not to get back in power.

      The left were the real conservatives under any valid definition but now they are the liberals.

      The rest is gobbledegood change defintiions every five minutes and most of it worthless.

      So try this. We are a nation of representive democratic principles which translates into the use of delegates to a Constitutional Republic the center of which is the Constitution.

      We are not a democracy and the center is not the center of the left. The left does have a center but hat’s between DINOs and RINOs the left and right wings of the left.

      But all those other terms and a few more I forgot all have one thing in common and that is their reliance on a foreign philosophy written by Marx and Engels and enhanced like Clintons tax proposals by Lenin and Hitler. and that based on the Plato, Hegel, Kant some plagiarist of those folks named Yoda Lykoff.

      The method you mentioned is called incrementalism using any and all means to gain and maintain strict control. The name for that is fascism lower case f upper case F refers to the party. The method is preached not taught.. In it’s lower case ‘f’ form it can be used by political, religious, secular, business, schools etc. but is rarely found in any form outside the left where it is rarely if every not found. Three extremist versions are secular progressives, national socialism and international socialsm. and NONE of them are found on the ‘true’ right except where used by propagandists.

      As you said never ‘knowlingly’ but once it became known a mistake of arrogance and stupdity the result was a counter revolution.

      1. @ma-that’s a 1944 quote by a noted socialist, not mine and he was right.

  7. I suppose the Presidents supporters should take to the streets protest, firebomb and beat liberals? Not going to happen, Trump supporters are law abiding citizens who want to live in a nation were they can expect safety, be able express themselves without being attacked by masked cowards.
    Whatever the final outcome the Presidents supporters may not like the results but rest assured they will accept it in a peaceful manner.

      1. I agree and God forbade that time arrives the black masked bullies I witnessed beating people and setting fires are in for the worse day of their miserable lives.

  8. Some of the best “legal” analysis I have seen of this issue is on Tucker Carlson’s show where each night he bumfuzzles anti-ban lawyers and immigration advocates. He asks them very simple questions, like “Do foreigner nationals in foreign countries have a right or claim to come to the country.” And, “How is allowing anyone who wants to come here the unfettered right to come helping America?”

    You usually get a “Statue of Liberty” answer to both questions, with a ton of blather. Here was tonight’s, which I have not reviewed in this form. I watched it live.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1g7Fuk0WdY

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. The curious part is it’s a ‘temporary’ ban and that is never explained. Temporary in what respect, time, until the next higher court makes a change, until the judge gets around tuit. Temporary is never explained in any of the news reports. No wonder people don’t trust these Judges who makes rule as a Minority of One? Or is it temporary like the16 year old war we are still involved in. No one knows except ONE judge and apparently he isn’t talking, isn’t explaining or ahad some secondary motive to use that particular word.

      OK those who studied law instead of philosophy or history – enlghten us. Shouldn’t take more than two sentences.

    2. He’s an a**. He’s spewing out stuff and the bottom line there is nothing illegal.

    3. I agree with Squeeky. I am waiting for another 9/11 event. It is likely due to all the open borders. We will need a wall between us and Canada because that Canuke idiot Trudeau wants to let in any terrorist with a plane ticket. Start building the walls. Don’t go to the Louvre.

    4. Tucker has grown on me. He stays calm and effectively asks the question that his ideologue guests simply don’t want to answer. And best of all, he never lets them off the hook usually offering a quick editorial comment disparaging their evasiveness. Good lawyering Tucker.

  9. Not withstanding that you profess to believe the order was bad for a variety of moral reasons, you still defend an order that was morally corrupt, unethical, anti-American, and devoid of any rational reasoning. Regardless of how you protest the dear leader’s order as wrong headed, you still defend it with all your might. I believe not long ago a young lady put you in your place on an interview, opinion TV show. Good for her.

    1. You are going to have to defend your position on judging the morality etc etc etc. starting with which philosophical system and subsequent belief system you follow to that conclusion.

      For the record I am a objectivest and we deal in facts and reality and do not put words in people’s mouths so the balls in your court. Defend or advance your premise.

    2. Just like defending the right of the KKK to hold a March or rally. The problem with Progressives is that they have become illiberal, seeking the result before the process.
      I didn’t vote for Trump, or Hillary for that matter but I am not scared because we have the law, the process, and checks and balances.
      I am more scared of people who only see a desired result and don’t care how they achieve it.

    3. Nope, Professor Turley held his own on against that beautiful, but vapid young “lady” on the Clinton Newz Network. Good for HIM!

      I am assuming this is the interview?

      1. Perhaps you should watch the segment until the end. She was 100% correct and certainly put the professor’s feet to fire as she should have. Certainly seems to be a lot of right wingnut racist islamaphobs on here.

        1. Yes, the video poster claims to be a progressive or something .Maybe that is some new subcaucus – Progressive Islamophobes. lol Welcome to Turley’s Trumpistan.

          1. Islamophobes. ? If you are suspicious of your neighbors from an Islamic nation who have been taught from birth that Christians are inferior (infidels) . Do you really think those attitudes were left at the borders when they got to our nation? That is NOT Islamophoba. It is facing reality. You may live here but that does not mean you are our friends.

            1. Are they surprised to find out the feeling is mutual or that students from India and Japan are the same but even more so?

      2. Fareed sure gave the young lady a LOT of air time to vent her views compared to the short shrift he gave Turley.

        1. You don’t have to be ugly to support terrorism. Which country attacks and holds shipping of other countries – Somalia and Yemen. Just for starters. Other than that she said nothing new or relevant just the same tape recorder but this time with a short skirt. And when you say Washington’s interest you mean King County and Seattle and oh yes ‘Up Town Port Townsend.’ That isn’t Washington.

    4. Professor Turley examined the precedential case law and prior constitutional interpretations to opine on the legality of the EO. That’s what lawyers and law professors do. It’s objective analysis. If he sincerely believed the EO would not survive legal challenge, everybody reading this blog except you understands he would say so.

      He may very well be wrong. Most or all of the EO may not survive. But he’s giving his honest legal analysis about a high profile case. Whether the EO survives or fails, I appreciate him taking the time to analyze it and offer us his opinion.

      Do you want him to pretend the EO will not survive the legal challenge if he believes otherwise? Or do you just want him to shut up and stay quiet about the whole thing because you don’t like his opinion? Or both?

  10. It will be quite a win for the administration. The left and media won’t like it. There will be more riots Pres. Trump wins.

          1. Good point. We should learn from current events:

            https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/01/05/church-sex-abuse-victims-still-coming-forward/Qe4kWBAdkR4NWqDepiNEXM/story.html

            P.s. I’m an agnostic (grew up Baptist) straight white male from the southeastern U.S. in case you want to go off about how this is fundamentally different and I have some agenda (I do have an agenda. It’s reminding Christians that their hands are just as bloody as those in Islam).

            1. Jeremiah, you don’t judge a religion by the actions of some of its purported adherents. You judge it by what its scripture teaches its adherents. And the Quran teaches its adherents some vile things directly related to the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal.

              Surah 33:59 Ahl-Azhab (The Combined Forces)

              “O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves [part] of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.”

              Believing women cover themselves so they will be known and not be abused. Unbelieving and “available” women also make themselves known by not covering themselves and may be abused. This is a pre-Islamic custom from earlier civilizations such as the Assyrians. Wearing the veil was a “privilege” of wealthy, married women and that distinguished them from slaves, who were available. The pre-Islamic Meccans had adopted the custom, and Muhammad incorporated it into Islam. Consequently Fatwas have been issued by respected clerics. This isn’t a fatwa, but Australia’s senior-most Muslim cleric said this in a Ramadan sermon a few years back.

              http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/muslim-leader-blames-women-for-sex-attacks/news-story/d8b6a183c6a976752cb07be532543afd

              “In a Ramadan sermon that has outraged Muslim women leaders, Sydney-based Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali also alluded to the infamous Sydney gang rapes, suggesting the attackers were not entirely to blame.

              While not specifically referring to the rapes, brutal attacks on four women for which a group of young Lebanese men received long jail sentences, Sheik Hilali said there were women who “sway suggestively” and wore make-up and immodest dress … “and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years”.

              “But the problem, but the problem all began with who?” he asked.

              The leader of the 2000 rapes in Sydney’s southwest, Bilal Skaf, a Muslim, was initially sentenced to 55 years’ jail, but later had the sentence reduced on appeal.

              In the religious address on adultery to about 500 worshippers in Sydney last month, Sheik Hilali said: “If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it … whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?

              “The uncovered meat is the problem.””

              This simply is a way to rephrase what Allah says in 33:59 about veils and inviting/discouraging abuse.

              Surah 33:59 isn’t the only scriptural authority Muslims have that says uncovered women basically deserve what they get.

              Surah 33:55

              “There is no blame upon women concerning their fathers or their sons or their brothers or their brothers’ sons or their sisters’ sons or their women or those their right hands possess. And fear Allah . Indeed Allah is ever, over all things, Witness.”

              There is no blame upon women who reveal themselves unveiled to their husbands or their muhram, close family members whom it’s unlawful to marry.

              Surah 24:31 An Nur (The Light)

              “And tell the believing women to reduce [some] of their vision and guard their private parts and not expose their adornment except that which [necessarily] appears thereof and to wrap [a portion of] their headcovers over their chests and not expose their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers, their brothers’ sons, their sisters’ sons, their women, that which their right hands possess, or those male attendants having no physical desire, or children who are not yet aware of the private aspects of women. And let them not stamp their feet to make known what they conceal of their adornment. And turn to Allah in repentance, all of you, O believers, that you might succeed.”

              Again, a repeat of the admonishment about who a woman can appear before unveiled without blame attaching.

              Surah 7:26 Al A’raf (The Heights)

              “O children of Adam, We have bestowed upon you clothing to conceal your private parts and as adornment. But the clothing of righteousness – that is best. That is from the signs of Allah that perhaps they will remember.”

              Just like in Australia, this doctrine is taught in sermons all across Europe. If women don’t want to be raped, they’ll wear the “clothing of righteousness.” But it isn’t just that this is what clerics and prayer leaders preach in Mosques. The fact is there is considerable scriptural support for it. And this is just the Quran. I haven’t even touched on Islam’s other source of religious authority. The Kitab al Sittah (the six books) of canonical hadith collections in Sunni Islam. Hadith meaning a report, in this context reports of Muhammad’s sayings, judgements, teachings, what assented to by remaining silent when something was said or done in his presence. And the canonical Kitab al Arba (the four books) of Shia Islam.

              As far as pedophilia goes, the Masked Arab has already done the job. He goes by the moniker the masked Arab because he’s an apostate from Islam. He was a devout Shia Muslim who decided to become more knowledgeable about his religion. Most Muslims don’t really know anything more than they have been told by their religious authorities. The same is true for most Christians, but the difference is most Christian denominations encourage Bible study, but Islam actively discourages it. Bid’ah or innovation is the gravest sin you can commit in Islam second to Shirq or assigning partners to Allah. Bid’ah is committed when a Muslim develops erroneous beliefs, in particular an interpretation of the Quran or hadith that is different from Muhammad’s or the rightly guided Caliph’s (in the case of the Shia the rightly guided Imam’s) understanding of Islam.

              But really there’s another reason. When the Masked Arab studied the Islamic source texts and found out what is actually in them, he became an atheist. You’ll understand should you watch this disturbing video on Pedophilia and Child Marriage in Isalm.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LE3QARjIZg

              Now, I don’t recall Jesus having anything to say about how it’s the woman’s fault if she gets raped, look at how she was dressed, or pedophilia or the sexual pleasures of child marriage. Did you pay attention during your Baptist upbringing? Perhaps you recall something He had to say on the subject that was more encouraging to those who sexually abuse children than this:

              Matthew 18

              “5And whoever welcomes a little child like this in My name welcomes Me. 6But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. ”

              I was raised Catholic. There’s a saying in Italy. The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of priests. Precisely because some of them abuse not only children but their positions of trust and authority.

              But the fact remains that raping non-Muslim women isn’t a crime in Islam. There is considerable support for the practice in both the Quran and the hadith. Just ask the Copts in Egypt. Muslims frequently kidnap Coptic Christian girls and rape and otherwise humiliate them and force them to convert to Islam. Some post the videos of it online, if you’re into that sort of thing. While it’s not a crime in Islam, Egypt isn’t a Sharia state and it may well technically a crime under Egyptian law, but the police won’t lift a finger when the faimily reports the kidnapping of their girl. The police tell them to go away, she’s with the Muslims now.

              And pedophilia (and child marriage) not only isn’t a crime, it’s considered one of the divine blessings of Allah. The Ayatollah Khomeini married a ten year old girl when he was twenty eight, shortly after his revolution against the Shah he lowered the marriage age to nine, and advised fathers “don’t let your daughters see their first blood in your house.” In other words, if that’s not clear enough, girls should be married before puberty. If you’ watch the video you’ll see Sunni clerics speak just as highly of the practice. And shut their shocked interviewers up by showing it’s in the Quran, that the practice is ordained by Allah, and essentially demand to know if they’re saying Allah is wrong. No one can get away with saying Allah is wrong on TV in a Muslim country; that’s a death sentence. It’s why the Masked Arab wears a mask and electronically alters his voice. You can’t even get away with that in
              Britain these day.

              So, the Rotherham sexual predators certainly didn’t violate any Islamic tenets. There’s nothing in the Islamic sources that condemns rape (as long as the woman isn’t Muslim). In fact, there’s quite a bit in the hadith especially that condones it. Islam certainly condones pedophilia.

              Can you provide similar scriptural support that these nominally Christian preachers and priests acted in accordance with Jusus’ teachings when they sexually abused children. Or at the very least committed no sin according to those same teachings.

            2. http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/allah-allows-muslims-to-rape-non-muslim-women-in-order-to-humiliate-them-claims-islamic-professor_1846312.html

              Video embedded in the article.

              “Suad Saleh, who is a professor from the renowned Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt, made the claims during an interview to a TV channel…

              Saleh suggests that the only time it is acceptable for Muslim men to enslave a woman for sexual purposes is during a ‘legitimate war’ between Muslims and their enemies such as that with Israel.

              Therefore, the female Islamic professor says that enslaving Israeli women and raping them would be entirely acceptable and encouraged, states The Inquistr News report.

              “The female prisoners of wars are ‘those whom you own.’ In order to humiliate them, they become the property of the army commander, or of a Muslim, and he can have sex with them just like he has sex with his wives,” reads the transcript of the interview provided by The Middle East Media Research Institute…”

              Now,, you might be wondering what this has to do with my statement that Egyptian Muslim men kidnapping (“enslaving”) Egyptian Coptic girls and raping them? This professor at Al Azhar University (there is no higher authority in Sunni Islam) is only talking about capturing sex slaves during a “legitimate war.” As if that isn’t bad enough. I’m glad you asked.

              Saleh suggested that, but didn’t come out and categorically state it. According to the Quran, the hadith, and ever single Sunni school of Sharia to live in relative safety in an Islamic state as one of the “protected” subjected the people of the book (those who have scripture that the Muslims recognize as originally divine revelation, although they believe it has become corrupted over time, usually the Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians) they must pay a crushing tax called the jizya. This will protect them. From the Muslims they live among. If a non-Muslim doesn’t pay the jizya, the non-Muslim becomes kuffar harbi, an unbeliever at war with the Muslims. The non-Muslim is no longer safe. He can be killed, his wife and daughters enslaved.

              Non-Muslims haven’t paid the jizya in over 160 years, when the Christian European powers forced the Ottaman empire to abolish the dhimma (all the debilitating regulations that made non-Muslims third class citizens including the jizya) as a condition for their military aid in the Ottoman empire’s war with Russia.

              So the Copts have been in a state of “legitimate war” with the Muslims in Egypt for over a century and a half.

            3. If you go back far enough Everyone has blood on their hands. Still the legal and cultural foundations of western civilization is Christian. Surely We did something right. The people of Every 3rd world nation Muslims included, are trying to get here; not to China or any Islamic nation.

              1. After Military retirement and a stint in law enforcement I ran away to sea once again both on sailing boats and in the merchant marine service.I reacll working on a Military Sealift Command Munitions Ship as set off across the Pacific picking up specific Cargo in California, Hawaii;, Japan, Korea, Okinawa, Guam, and Diego Garcia. We all realized it was no drill as the ship headed to Persian Gulf and on to near Kuwait. Just a bit north. The next months witnessed other ships and boats in the area putting on a fireworks display as hundreds of cruise type missiles launches.

                Some months later we left went back as far as Japan for some minor refits and topping off the cargo holds and then back on Station for the Western Pacific India Ocean Area. A four month cruise and near ten months after getting one I got off and never looked back – in Darwin Australia. Visited relatives and went home via Taiwan. What a difference.

                There was an atmospher of sheer fear which the news explained as the people stating openly we don’t care about civil rights we just want to feel safe.

                Sixteen years late we still don’t have our civil rights back, The terrorists apparently won on that score and now I see those scare mongers of the press beating a different drum. I guess it will taske another Trade Towers size event to remind folks and they should be reminded of the whole cost. Within 100 miles of a border or coast the Constitution is still suspended. Everywhere the patriot act expanded and extended still replacess probable cause with ‘suspicion of,’ Two rogue nations are testing ICBMs and have a nuclear capability, our military was cut in half, our nation doubled it’s debt

                And we have nothing to show for it

                Now this protest crap from the same who whiined ‘ make us feel safe.’

                You know what:? I don’t feel safe in the USA anymore. But I see hope and a strong possibility of a return to the rule of Consitutional Law based on democratic principles perhaps being allowed to return.

                And I have a new definition of enemies domestic. by those who whine and cry but when the chips are down you will never see them pick up a rucksack and rifle and take their place on the wall of our countries defense whether it be a ship or a tank.

                At that point ‘I am so very glad our oath of office was and is to the Constitution and not to the people.

                Because near half of you aren’t worth it.

                Don’t call me this next time. My phone is off the hook.

    1. Certainly not from the leftist version. Come on….there are so many versions which would you choose?”

  11. “When the situation was manageable it was neglected, and now that it is thoroughly out of hand we apply too late the remedies which then might have effected a cure. There is nothing new in the story. It is as old as the sibylline books. It falls into that long, dismal catalogue of the fruitlessness of experience and the confirmed unteachability of mankind. Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong–these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history.”

    — Winston Churchill, House of Commons, 2 May 1935

  12. I looked and looked and looked and could not find out what ‘temporary’ means in that court order. Wondering why the news failed to ask the obvious question?

    1. A TRO or Temporary Restraining Order expires by its own terms a maximum of 14 days after it is issued.
      That is found in Rule 65(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

  13. This is why I follow this blog. I don’t expect that legal arguments favor my worldview but I like to pursue arguments that challenge them.

Comments are closed.