I previously discussed my surprise over the clumsy performance of the Justice Department in defending the Trump executive order on immigration. Those concerns were magnified after the oral argument before the Ninth Circuit that was made available on YouTube. The performance by August Flentje, special counsel to the assistant U.S. attorney general, was surprisingly lackluster and seemingly ill-prepared. The shaky start that I described earlier seems now to be seismic as the Justice Department stumbles toward a ruling that can come as early as today. As Flentje observed during his uninspired argument “I’m not sure I’m convincing the court.”
The questions by the panel seemed to largely favor the challengers though that can be a reflection of the highly favorable standard for the review of a temporary restraining order. Nevertheless, Judge Richard Clifton, a George W. Bush appointee, expressed skepticism over the reference to this order as a “Muslim ban.” He noted that the moratorium on entry from the seven targeted nations affected only 15% of the world’s Muslim population: “I have trouble understanding where we’re supposed to infer religious animus when in fact the vast majority of Muslims would not be affected.”
Nevertheless, as predicted, the baffling statement of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani that Trump wanted a “Muslim ban” were used by challengers. Giuliani seriously undermined the order with his interview and is being credited by challengers as one of their greatest assets. I do not believe that Giuliani’s ill-conceived comment should given much weight by the court but it was raised during the argument.
William Canby, a Carter appointee, and Judge Michelle Friedland, an Obama appointee, seemed to hammer the Administration harder with their questions — questions that the Administration failed to effectively answer despite their great predictability. Friedland particularly pressed the Administration on its basis for picking these seven countries: a line of inquiry that many judges would view problematic if the court is viewed as second guessing such national security determinations.
Once again, I hope that Congress took note of the roughly 137,000 people who listened to the argument live and the many more listened on various television channels, — another example of why the public should be allowed to watch arguments remotely before appellate courts, including the United States Supreme Court.
If the questions are a reflection of the direction of the panel, it would seem most likely that the panel will refuse to overturn Judge Robart and likely send the case back for a final determination and opinion. The Justice Department would then go to the Supreme Court but Gorsuch may not be on the Court when the petition comes before it. That would leave the current eight-member Court unless the confirmation is moved forward with dispatch.
Are we witnessing the demise of the
Executive Branch.
I believe what we are witnessing is a pruning of the administrative state. “Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.” John 15:2
Every “thorn” in the side of this President should expect to be pruned.
You have the opportunity to view the arguments on YouTube.
I think the Washington attorney was better prepared that the Special Counsel for the DOJ. If that was there heavy hitter, any contested order not properly drafted could be subjected to scrutiny.
I think we need to issue tee shirts with the letters: NFM. It is kind of like Black Lives Matter. It would catch on. No Friggin Muslims.
Having listened to the arguments, my one sentence summary is as follows:
“Self-righteous rhetoric is no substitute for evidence in the record. ”
This was a poorly conceived and poorly executed EO. Trump can easily issue a new EO tomorrow, as noted above. The fact that he has not done so, to fix all of the problems with the first EO, indicates that Trump is more interested in picking a fight for political ends than he is in protecting the country. Trump is all about Trump, all the time.
Agreed.
I believe your view is accurate. Since we now have government by whim, thoughtful policy analysis is not informing decision-making. Trump could indeed moot the court case by withdrawing the current order and issuing a new one. But that would require at least a tacit acknowledgment that he screwed up. That won’t happen. And I am still waiting for someone to explain to me what the hell “extreme vetting” means in relation to the procedures currently utilized.
If he did that, he would constantly be in court defending it. In other news, the government attorney literally phoned it in. He didn’t sound like he was trying to win.
They all did. One judge was in San Jose, one was in Hawaii, and the other in Phoenix.
I was being facetious. For an attorney who was given an award by a former AG for his work as a litigator, he seemed either incompetent or uninterested.
The display by the judges reminded me of the musings of the great philosopher Mike Tyson who said, “everybody has a game plan until you get punched in the face.”
Interrupting the attorney’s train of thought every few seconds is like getting punched in the face. It prevents the attorney from presenting the case he prepared to put on. I understand the judges want to see specific points addressed. But isn’t it the attorney’s job to plan and put on the best case he can for his side? If the attorney fails to make the points the judge would like to see addressed, then that should be reflected in the ruling. No?
Justice Kennedy says he opposes audio/video in the court room because he’s worried about grandstanding by attorneys. Well, my sense is that a couple of the judges in this case knew they had a large audience listening and THEY did some grandstanding.
One of the judges who was interrupting the government lawyer sounded real old. Was he calling from his assisted living home?
I am curious about one issue. Were all of the terrorists in the 9/11 plane crashes Muslims? Or do we not know who they were and what their origin was? Someone needs to kill their mothers so as to give some turnabout is fair play to Muslims all the way.
I wonder if the Professor wonders why so many freaks comment on his blog
I don’t know either. Why do you?
Well, I haven’t been to this blog for a long time and came back a week ago. I assumed that because the Professor seems to be normalizing Trump’s presidency, the white supremacists feel they have a “home” here. But perhaps they’ve been here for a long time, I don’t know.
Yasmine – the only white supremacist I know on the blog currently is issac. He comes from Canada, so it’s to be expected.
You need a new pair of glasses.
anon – spoken like a true white supremacist.
They’ve been here for at least the past year since I started visiting regularly.
Appeared here around the time when Trayvon Martin was killed.
Scott
I have handled a significant number of oral arguments before the 9th Circuit and other Courts of Appeal. The tone and tenor of the questions yesterday were not much different than they were in cases I argued, none of which were high profile nationally. You can go watch videos of other 9th Circuit oral arguments by going to the 9th Circuit website. In my most recent argument, one Judge grandstanded by spending 5 minutes lecturing me on why I was going to lose. His target was the other two Judges on the bench. Judges are like that, no matter now many people are or are not listening.
I certainly sensed Friedland helping the Washington SG when he was stumbling. One such exchange was the question about facts not just allegations and newspaper clippings from Clifton. After the SG reiterated that the case is still in the pleading stage and discovery remains, Friedland abruptly commented (paraphrased), “You do have declarations in your exhibits though. Right?” There were several of those.
She’s from Berkeley. 🙂
Don de Drain – at least the judge did not complain about your filing or defending the suit. It was nice of him/her to give you a heads up about losing. 😉
There were certainly less restrictive measures that could have been exercised as opposed to banning everyone from those seven countries and giving preference to minority religious affiliation. While it may or may not be true Muslims from these seven countries constitute only 15 percent of Muslims worldwide, they are majority Muslim, it’s an attempt to avoid the almost the fact that the populations in the countries he’s banned are almost totally Muslim:
Iran – 99.6% Muslim
Iraq – 98.9% Muslim
Syria – 92.8% Muslim
Yemen – 99.0% Muslim
Somalia – 99.9% Muslim
Sudan – 97% Muslim
Libya – 97% Muslim
Average percent Muslim population of the seven countries named in the EO = 97.7%
Along with his statement he was going to ban all Muslims from entering the country, the inference of religious discrimination is certainly there, let alone the arbitrary nature of the EO that I’d guess Trump will support by claiming he can’t divulge for national security, and the conflict between 1182(f) conflicts and 1152(a)(1).
The implication that seating Gorsuch will help here doesn’t pass the smell test.
Trump should have just said: No Friggin Muslims!
What is a smell test on a Supreme Court nominee? I want a nominee who does not hail from Harvard or Yale.
All Muslim and all Isis/Al qaeda hotbeds. Indonesia has the most Muslims..no ban. Egypt is the largest middle eastern country..no ban.
Saudi Arabia was the source of the majority if not all hijackers in 2001. No ban.
Agreed. They should have made the list.
The reason they didn’t is because for all their mischief they are not failed states where vetting is impossible. It would have undercut the entire rationale.
Is it 2001? Seems to me it is 2017 and the threat from nations other than Saudi Arabia has been determined to be higher.
Don’t you think the president needs to prove that these countries are completely overwhelmed with terrorists, so much so that he needs to ban anyone and everyone from entering the US other than religious minorities? Or does he get to do as he pleases, arbitrarily, like King James I asserting his prerogative? Do we give him that latitude to protect us, knowing that’s what Germany did in the mid to late ’30s?
The EO should have indicated its bases rather than toss a blanket. If we can tap into the German Chancellor’s phone calls, . . . and get information from whoever tapped Podesta’s emails, we can identify who is and isn’t worthy of heightened procedural checks. Certainly, there are many innocent individuals in those countries. It’s very difficult to believe that visa holders couldn’t be vetted regularly and that refugees couldn’t be detained here during the vetting process as an alternative.
National Security details are many time classified. As such, to disclose such information, to make you happy, would present additional problems.
Does the Executive have exclusive authority when it comes to the use of nuclear weapons?
Does the Executive have exclusive authority when it comes to defending the nation from an imminent threat?
Does the Executive have exclusive authority when it comes to prosecutorial discretion?
“we can identify who is and isn’t worthy of heightened procedural checks” – Therein lies the problem. It has been determined by those whose duty it is to determine who is worthy that we lack sufficient information necessary to make that determination. – I see that you position is that if we cannot determine who is worthy, we should just let them all in and pray for the best.
I have given you two cases that clearly establish exclusive Executive discretion. Anything to support your position?
“By the constitution of the United States, the President is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his political character, and to his own conscience. To aid him in the performance of these duties, he is authorized to appoint certain officers, who act by his authority and in conformity with his orders.
In such cases, their acts are his acts; and whatever opinion may be entertained of the manner in which executive discretion may be used, still there exists, and can exist, no power to control that discretion. The subjects are political. They respect the nation, not individual rights, and being entrusted to the executive, the decision of the executive is conclusive. . . .”
Marbury v Madison (1803)
“The duty thus imposed on the President is in no just sense ministerial. It is purely executive and political.”
“An attempt on the part of the judicial department of the government to enforce the performance of such duties by the President might be justly characterized, in the language of Chief Justice Marshal, as ‘an absurd and excessive extravagance.’”
“It is true that, in the instance before us, the interposition of the court is not sought to enforce action by the Executive under constitutional legislation, but to restrain such action under legislation alleged to be unconstitutional. But we are unable to perceive that this circumstance takes the case out of the general principles which forbid judicial interference with the exercise of Executive discretion.”
“The impropriety of such interference will be clearly seen upon consideration of its possible consequences.”
“Suppose the bill filed and the injunction prayed for allowed. If the President refuse obedience, it is needless to observe that the court is without power to enforce its process. If, on the other hand, the President complies with the order of the court and refuses to execute the acts of Congress, is it not clear that a collision may occur between the executive and legislative departments of the government? May not the House of Representatives impeach the President for such refusal? And in that case, could this court interfere in behalf of the President, thus endangered by compliance with its mandate, and restrain by injunction the Senate of the United States from sitting as a court of impeachment? Would the strange spectacle be offered to the public world of an attempt by this court to arrest proceedings in that court?”
“These questions answer themselves.”
“It is true that a State may file an original bill in this court. And it may be true, in some cases, that such a bill may be filed against the United States. But we are fully satisfied that this court has no jurisdiction of a bill to enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties; and that no such bill ought to be received by us.”
“It has been suggested that the bill contains a prayer that, if the relief sought cannot be had against Andrew Johnson, as President, it may be granted against Andrew Johnson as a citizen of Tennessee. But it is plain that relief as against the execution of an act of Congress by Andrew Johnson is relief against its execution by the President. A bill praying an injunction against the execution of an act of Congress by the incumbent of the presidential office cannot be received, whether it describes him as President or as a citizen of a State.
The motion for leave to file the bill is, therefore, DENIED.”
Mississippi v Johnson (1867)
It is interesting how quickly the conversation has changed to an open debate on which Muslim countries should be banned, should’ve been banned, shouldn’t be banned, etc. due their known ties to radical Islamic terrorism. In less than 3 weeks, we’ve gone from the Obama administration where those words were not spoken to the Trump administration where they have reached the 2nd highest court in the land.
This political neophyte has managed to outmaneuver the political sophisticates to become President and he’s doing it in office. The longer his intelligence is underestimated the bigger hole the Left will be digging themselves.
It is worth repeating; it does not matter what Trump told Giuliani he “wanted” to do, what’s important is he listened to a legal adviser who told him what he “can” do legally. That’s what we should want the President to do. On top of that, Trump’s intent is to IMPROVE a process to make the United States MORE secure. For the Left to take on this particular issue is a lose/lose for them. They’ll expose the courts for being the partisan hacks that they are. If they prevail they will OWN all harm done as a result and the Trump administration will OWN all harm prevented. If the do not prevail, they will still have to take ownership of harm that can be tied to this gap in changes to our immigration policy.
It is quite a thing to watch the professional political class get their respective hats handed to them by a professional from the business class. 🙂
“It is quite a thing to watch the professional political class get their respective hats handed to them by a professional from the business class. :)”
I’ll grant you he has more than one set of others’ undies in a knot. Whatever the outcome, the Judiciary wins unless there’s a silent coup.
Steve Groen – expect Sessions to be approved and then some heads will roll and a few will be replaced. I think this DoJ flunky either took a dive or was too incompetent to defend a case before the Ninth Circuit. Still, regardless, it will be appealed by one side or the other. The Supremes are going to have to deal with it. They probably have their clerks writing the drafts already.
Paul: You may very well be correct, but the danger of validating this Executive Order is precedent for the next leap to another level of the President’s authority and Congress and the federal judiciary know it (hence, the Bush 43 appointee who decided in favor of the stay).
Steve Groen – there are 4 or 5 openings in the Ninth Circuit. Trump could make life very interesting for the liberals over there. 😉
“next leap to another level of the President’s authority”
What leap? This authority has been exercised by many Executives throughout history. You’re acting as if the plenary authority to make national security decisions is something Trump created. As such, I see this as more an anti-Trump effort than any serious legal debate
.
Not really. The president should be called on some aspects of his power as with his assertion this wasn’t about religion when the inference comes from his own mouth. Otherwise, he can do as he pleases, in bad faith, and claim national security grounds, which isn’t far from the truth for a lot of what goes on in the Executive. Then, we have to wait for patriots to be put in jail after disclosing the illegalities.
Abu Graib is a good example.
So what? That was over 15 years ago. IF these countries are so harmless, why did we just have a SEAL ooperation in Yemen to take out the number 3 Al Qaeda leader–which is supposedly larger now than it was in 2001.
Frankee, Who gives you your National Security Briefings that permit you to speak with authority over what countries present a significant risk? Do you rely on the same National Security Briefing that Judge Robarts relies on? – Chances are, the answer is that neither of you receive National Security Briefings, and, as such, neither of you are have sufficient knowledge to make that determination.
Guess you dont read the papers, Jack…. There is enough public information. Plus, I am willing to take the analysis of two presidents of divergent political stripes.
It doesnt take a NSA briefing to recognize that all of those countries are FUBAR, and normal vetting protocal is inoperable.
Yes but consider the major purpose of the whole exercise. The system is FUBAR beyond recognition. No doubt. The left half of the population refuses to accept their own deposed leader in his evaluation of the situation. What you read in the papers or watch on TV has a great deal to do with propaganda and little to do with reality. the carefully and accurately written law on the subject is ignored by the mob.which does not mean the common citizen.
Going through these steps is slowing no one up unless that procedure was one put in place prior to Nov 8th.
Going through these steps has shown where they were wrong and false on their face when applied in the manner written and the first Judge involved made that plain and made a same day correction stating why.
Now we are being held up by whom? One Judge who speaks for a limited portion of Minnesota and Washington State’s people. He just ducked the issue and quacked and in truth was sandbagged into speeding uip the road to the Supreme Court. citing extraneous drivel.
Better off without that level and that Judge if you want progress.
Now it’s at ….what 9th Circuit entire? The fumble bums of juris prudence. At this point going for your worst players on your worst team is a plus. Guarantees an appeal.So 9th circuits role is to fiddle fart around and delay I suppose. I see no othe reason for them to get out of bed.
So what do we have? clear cut example of different things wrong with the previous system and clear cut involvement of the parts of the branches of government that count.
That put SCOTUS on trial Follow the Constitution or serve the party.
Gorsuch gets sworn in that changes so they can’t delay too long. That one is Constitutional to the core.
How will it turn out? Better when all is done meanwhile the confirmation process goes on and the names for the 15 next seats to be filled and some thousands of other positions fall in line. Somewhere in there will be a nuclear explosion over the top of Schumer head.
At that point with som rare exceptions they will have no reason to get out of bed in the morning. Have made no points with the Constitutionalists, none with the Republicans and none with a great many of the former Democrat Party. They will be elected officials with no party behind them.
That’s going to be interesting. Cowardly Custard Reid ducked out of the line of fire as if he was Kerry in Vietnam. Pelosi publicly quit and Schumunchker is a prime candidate for his own group pulling the plug.
.Aren’t things going well??? And it’s only been three weeks with all this progress made changing directions and regressing would be rather foolish. Especially with the Oppositon Party commiting sucide.
Last Comment No More Democrats as for as the white eye dees are concerned. They are now the Opposition Party. Let them eat ethanol.
Deguello!
That argument is specious at best. If no terror attacks have emanated from Saudi Arabia for 15 years, a ban would simply be recrimination and designed to satisfy the simple minded.
The reasoning that the countries not on the list have functioning governments that are able to cooperate with us to ensure proper vetting, seems far more plausible.
If previous bad acts, not future security are to be determinative, we should ban immigration from Japan as more Americans died as a result of Japanese aggression than terrorism.
As the French learned when they built the Maginot Line, if you keep fighting the last war, you lose the next one.
Trump; “I want to ban all Muslims from entering the country.”
Response; “You can’t do that.”
Trump; “What can I do? I want to protect this country from terrorism. We don’t have a way to properly vet these people”
Response; “Well, it would be okay to block the nations that present the highest risk until we can come up with a vetting process that we find to be reliable enough to permit entry while reducing the risk.”
Trump; “Okay, let’s do that.”
The original thought of a Muslim ban was to use the lowest common denominator, Muslims. When that was determined to not be a good idea, they came up with the next lowest common denominator…Countries that have been identified to present the greatest risk. – Call it what you want. It’s a ban to mitigate security risks. Just because those countries who are on the list happen to have a lot of Muslims does not negate the security risk anymore than finding out that the people are mostly right-handed.
Oh, good. Now you’ll recite the list of persons from these seven countries who have committed a terrorrist attack in the United States. Crickets…
Do we have to have a terrorist attack from one of those 7 countries before we can take steps to reduce the chances?
What if a top-secret security briefing indicates an imminent risk from one, or a multitude, of those countries?
Ok Ill take the bait: here’s one of the top of my head. The Somali at Ohio State University.
Dude: its about FAILED NATION STATES that cannot provide information for vetting.
Duh. Are you such a pedagogue that you care more about winning an argument than acknowleding that these countries are a mess and that they need better scrutiny?
Ill just st give you the most recent one. The Somali refugee who drove into the crowd at Ohio State a couple of months ago. It doesn’t matter because we should be able to observe and learn from what is happening in other countries.
Germany is the canary in the coal mine. It has stopped singing.
Has Turley actually had a serious discussion on the Standing issue? If not, why not?
I picture a future where N.Y. & Calif feel free to sue in federal district court regarding any foreign policy decision taken w/o Congress. Then we can enter the era of Kentucky & Wyoming challenging the same decisions by a Democratic president.
No State has standing to sue. And, it goes beyond standing. These two states wish to be Sanctuary States and decide who gets to wash ashore and stay. We are on the road to Armagilla and I don’t even know how to spell it.
By the way. The lawyer for the government of the U.S. was terrible. He must have flunked Kindergarten.
States have standing to sue when the law in question has a direct harm to the Stat as a whole, not individual citizens of that state.
“It is true that a State may file an original bill in this court. And it may be true, in some cases, that such a bill may be filed against the United States. But we are fully satisfied that this court has no jurisdiction of a bill to enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties; and that no such bill ought to be received by us.”
“It has been suggested that the bill contains a prayer that, if the relief sought cannot be had against Andrew Johnson, as President, it may be granted against Andrew Johnson as a citizen of Tennessee. But it is plain that relief as against the execution of an act of Congress by Andrew Johnson is relief against its execution by the President. A bill praying an injunction against the execution of an act of Congress by the incumbent of the presidential office cannot be received, whether it describes him as President or as a citizen of a State.
The motion for leave to file the bill is, therefore, DENIED.”
Mississippi v Johnson (1867)
“By the constitution of the United States, the President is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his political character, and to his own conscience. To aid him in the performance of these duties, he is authorized to appoint certain officers, who act by his authority and in conformity with his orders.
In such cases, their acts are his acts; and whatever opinion may be entertained of the manner in which executive discretion may be used, still there exists, and can exist, no power to control that discretion. The subjects are political. They respect the nation, not individual rights, and being entrusted to the executive, the decision of the executive is conclusive. . . .”
Marbury v Madison (1803)
Isn’t it funny how the courts welcome Marbury when it is used as the source of their authority, but forget about it when it restricts their authority?
No state has standing to sue the President for injunctive relief from an executive order on immigration? Why, it seems like only two years ago when there were 26 of them:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1668185-hanendapadaca.html#document/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_Action_for_Parents_of_Americans
Steve Groen, Were those suits claiming that the President exceeded his discretionary authority? I think that it the case. – In this case, no one is claiming the President exceeded his authority. They just don’t like the effect.
Jack: If the argument is the constitutional propriety or lack thereof of Trump’s actions, it’s about exceeding his authority.
Mississippi v Johnson and Marbury v Madison would disagree. What are you relying on?
Flunked kindergarten? 16 years as DOJ civil trial lawyer; Georgetown Law; Princeton. His father is a professor at Wichita State. His mother is a lawyer.
Sonny Liston was a great heavyweight. But, he was owned by the mob and tanked his second fight against Ali. I listened to that fight and I listened to the oral argument yesterday. I know a tank job when I hear it. At what point do people realize the establishment, from BOTH parties and all the bureaucracies will do whatever it takes to beat Trump.
Apparently, the two senior DOJ attorneys recused themselves for a conflict of interest, leaving Flentje as first chair.
Just the same, I’d be very hesitant to give one person more power than an entire Congress or the Supreme Court. I think we’ll see more heated argument up the ladder. In the meantime, Trump needs to shut his mouth because it hurts his counsel’s ability to represent him every time he opens it.
It was the phantom answer like with Ali’s phantom punch of Liston. Why didn’t that numbnut AUSA say:
“The President of the United States has plenary authority in areas of immigration per act of the legislature; he has plenary authority to act in areas of national defense per the Constitution. Any effort by this Court to impede either role, absent an express prohibition of Congress or the Constitution is judicial overreach not judicial review. This EO contains neither an act proscribed by Congress, nor one expressly proscribed by the Constitution and it would take a fair amount of contortion to make it so. Any effort to hinder the duly-elected representative of the people from carrying out his sacred and paramount duty to protect our shores from the very real threat so evident in France, in Belgium, in the UK, and in Turkey endangers us all and brings the Court into disrepute as a gatekeeper of its own prestige rather than the national interest. Outlawing the implementation of the EO will almost certainly have real human cost in terms of blood and treasure even if only judging from simple statistics, the onus of which flows onto your collective hands if you are in the least bit wrong about the outcome here and the President is right. Courts are not enablers of lawful suicide, they are servants of freedom which requires in the largest measure that its beneficiaries be alive to enjoy it.”
Mic drop! That is an eloquent statement Mespo.
I told you I can do this stuff. It’s easy when you mean it and not so when you don’t.
I doubt Steve will get it.
3 to 2.
Years of experience, educational credentials, and his ancestors are totally irrelevant. The issue–the only issue–is performance, and at that, Flentje failed miserably. Whatever we the people pay him is wasted money; therefore, Flentje should be removed from government service. Then, once unemployed, he’ll be able to seek a job where years of experience, educational credentials, and ancestry are valued more than competence and performance.
And that is the true chaos that “Progressives” say they abhor. Both sides have been guilty of trying to bend the system to their particular agenda.
Neocons had no problem with Bush expanding Executive power when it was employed to further their agenda. Progressives were ecstatic over Obama’s assault on our Constitutional system with his “If Congress won’t act, I will!” Declaration of war on the Constitution and Separation of Powers.
Years of erosion of the Separation of Powers have led us to this point, ironically Trump is relying on statutory authority to make his Executive Order and it is getting the most hysterical push back.
You don’t have to like it or agree with it but if the Executive is prevented from exercising statutory powers, it may be all over for us as a republic and a unified nation.
No one wins when the end result is world chaos. Mr Trump may have been comfortable with running his company that way. And people may have been comfortable working in that environment.
However, when you give Putin the Upper hand in world diplomacy you have failed at your Mission.
I am not an Obama supporter, nor am I a Bush supporter. At least they had skills at diplomacy.
Mr Trumps aid said yesterday something along the lines of this: “How can you be upset with false information, when he (Trump) gets it right part of the time.” A sad remark to say. I think we expect the President to tell the truth or say nothing.
This is awesome! The Left is trying to win their first battle with Trump and what is it they win? The right to allow people access into our country without be fully vetted. As a matter of fact, the Left has taken ownership of EVERY failure in immigration from Obama’s reign until the point President Trump is allowed to put into place his own policies. Congratulations. Forget the fact it’s that sort of mind-numbing stupidity from the Left that exposed the Democrats as completely out-of-touch with the concerns of mainstream Americans and put Trump into the White House.
As much as I am enjoying the unwinding of the damage this past administration has done to this country, the best thing that has happened so far is the confirmation of Betsy DeVos. All anyone needs to know how disastrous she will be for the Progressive movement and particularly the Democratic party is to see how much effort was expended to keep her from being confirmed.
Conservatives owe Barack Obama a debt of gratitude for what he has done to lead us to this moment in history. Things could have gone much better for him and the progressives had he not been so arrogant as to believe HE had to complete the fundamental transformation of America. Big mistake! Instead he awoke the sleeping giant; the average American voter that is found outside the big coastal cities. So now that people are awake, they have also been learning or want to learn more. They want their children to learn, free from government indoctrination. Critical-thinking skills will need to be taught and that means the Federal Dept. of Ed needs to go and major reforms in the education field need to be implemented at the state and local levels. Thank you Betsy DeVos!
To recap: what goals are conservatives seeking to reach that they can applaud progressives for helping us to get there?
Reduce Apathy: on track
Reduce Civics Ignorance: on track
Increase Self-Reliance: on track
Keep up the great work Lefties, you have been a very good partner. I recommend you double-down the efforts you have made to date. 🙂
Brilliant!!!!!
You’re allowed your own opinion, not your own facts. Next.
I was surprised at the amount of heat directed by the judges at the SG of the State of Washington after the grilling they gave Mr.Flentje on behalf of the President.It may have been an attempt to appear even-handed or reflected a genuine concern with some of the SG’s positions.Veramos.
Oh. I am on Cloud 9 and there is an email up here which says that al Zawari just got off a plane in LA. When he got off he emailed: “I love LA”.
I am watching Amy Goodman on Link TV. The dialogue is not at all focused on the real constitutional issues or the national security interests.
Regarding the court hearing. The judges wanted dialogue about a ban on Muslims. The lawyer for the government was lame. I think more expressive response is in order. If the Judges think it is contempt of court then so be it.
The government needs to say to the Court this: Congress has passed statutes giving the President full power to make a decision and issue this Executive Order. The President is within the bounds of the statute. The Constitution permits all of this. I yield my argument to the states here who think they have States Rights! They wish to substitute their lame powers for that of the federal government and the Commander in Chief on an issue of extreme national security. States do not have such “powers”.
“By the constitution of the United States, the President is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his political character, and to his own conscience. To aid him in the performance of these duties, he is authorized to appoint certain officers, who act by his authority and in conformity with his orders.
In such cases, their acts are his acts; and whatever opinion may be entertained of the manner in which executive discretion may be used, still there exists, and can exist, no power to control that discretion. The subjects are political. They respect the nation, not individual rights, and being entrusted to the executive, the decision of the executive is conclusive. . .”
Marbury v Madison (1803) .
“The duty thus imposed on the President is in no just sense ministerial. It is purely executive and political.”
“An attempt on the part of the judicial department of the government to enforce the performance of such duties by the President might be justly characterized, in the language of Chief Justice Marshal, as ‘an absurd and excessive extravagance.’”
“It is true that, in the instance before us, the interposition of the court is not sought to enforce action by the Executive under constitutional legislation, but to restrain such action under legislation alleged to be unconstitutional. But we are unable to perceive that this circumstance takes the case out of the general principles which forbid judicial interference with the exercise of Executive discretion.”
“The impropriety of such interference will be clearly seen upon consideration of its possible consequences.”
“Suppose the bill filed and the injunction prayed for allowed. If the President refuse obedience, it is needless to observe that the court is without power to enforce its process. If, on the other hand, the President complies with the order of the court and refuses to execute the acts of Congress, is it not clear that a collision may occur between the executive and legislative departments of the government? May not the House of Representatives impeach the President for such refusal? And in that case, could this court interfere in behalf of the President, thus endangered by compliance with its mandate, and restrain by injunction the Senate of the United States from sitting as a court of impeachment? Would the strange spectacle be offered to the public world of an attempt by this court to arrest proceedings in that court?”
“These questions answer themselves.”
“It is true that a State may file an original bill in this court. And it may be true, in some cases, that such a bill may be filed against the United States. But we are fully satisfied that this court has no jurisdiction of a bill to enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties; and that no such bill ought to be received by us.”
“It has been suggested that the bill contains a prayer that, if the relief sought cannot be had against Andrew Johnson, as President, it may be granted against Andrew Johnson as a citizen of Tennessee. But it is plain that relief as against the execution of an act of Congress by Andrew Johnson is relief against its execution by the President. A bill praying an injunction against the execution of an act of Congress by the incumbent of the presidential office cannot be received, whether it describes him as President or as a citizen of a State.
The motion for leave to file the bill is, therefore, DENIED.”
Mississippi v Johnson (1867)
“I do not believe that Giuliani’s ill-conceived comment should given much weight by the court ”
Asserted without any reason why. It’s very strong evidence, along with Trump’s own statements that he wanted a Muslim ban and the fact that his White House is guided by proven Islamophobes.
We have about two years to convince enough people to vote out the GOP majority in the Senate, to win back as many seats in Congress as possible, to build the necessary groundswell against DDT for the following two years; in short to illustrate to Americans just how dangerous and unAmerican these mutts really are. Hopefully, DDT will sink this fetid ship with his fish mouth.
All this stuff about courts and appeals is that interpretive substance that acts as a glue to keep America together as well as keep it from coming together. In this case it serves America well in keeping this issue at the forefront. DDT and his mutts can only blame Obama for so long; especially given the facts which just won’t go away. We’re better off after Obama’s eight years than after the eight years of the three stooges.
Res ipsa loquitur.
Well said, as usual.
Hard to get inspired by an order that was not adequately vetted, was unsupported by evidence or experience and was contradicted by the President’s own words.
Like the ACA? The President told us that anyone who said it was a tax, was lying. Then sent his lawyers to court to argue that it was a tax! He prevailed.
Courts are not here to decide what’s good for us. They are here to decide the law. It really is that simple. If we keep distorting the system to obtain the desired results, we end up where we are today. It gets worse if we don’t regain respect for the law and the process.
It was clearly a sabotaged attempt. I’m not an attorney, I don’t play one on tv and I didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night and I could make a better argument than the government did.
It’s as simple as, individual states do not have standing to sue the federal government on matters of border control and immigration, saving a mandate from the federal government to perform some specific act, or acts. If states were required to issue driver’s licenses, they could make the case that this was an expense they had to bear and claim standing to sue.
Secondly, the Courts have no review power over the judgements made by the Executive as that is not a matter of Law but policy and any review properly belongs with the Congress.
Drops the mic, takes the entire team to Buffalo Wild Wings.
I think we are seeing the visages of the Obama administration at work. If you don’t want to win, you don’t play full court.
It is amazing the unpreparedness of the Respondants lack of knowledge of the case. If you can’t believe in the argument you are making then your case is doomed.
Unfortunately, Trump loves himself more than anyone else and sandbagged any possibility of help. He should have never said he wanted a Muslim ban or have stated that he would help Christians affected by the ban.
The ban was over broad because it caught valid green card holders, whom have a legal right to be here and vague because who is the ban supposed to apply to. Citizens of The UK were penalized because some had dual passports and were banned.
He can write a new one tomorrow.
I’ll go with category “No Standing for Two,” Alex.
Sandbagging comes to mind. They can appeal faster than Seattle and Minneapolis and get it up to the Supreme Court without the filibustering…..