Home » The courts rule on Trump’s intent and the “Muslim ban”

Comments

The courts rule on Trump’s intent and the “Muslim ban” — 15 Comments

  1. This is so bizarre. What if another advisor said something totally contradicting another advisor. Do judges get to decide now which one is telling the truth and use that to craft rulings? What if a candidate says two different things during the course of a campaign? It happens all the time as they talk to different constituencies with differing agendas. Do judges get to decide which statement he really meant and use that to craft rulings?

    Here’s a wacky idea how about they rule based on the text in question and it’s constitutionality and leave the mind reading out of it.

  2. Griffin:

    I’ve never seen rulings like this.

    I’ve never seen campaign statements being admissible (although it’s not like I know everything about case law on the subject). But I do see them as picking and choosing a couple from a huge number, and ignoring the others. I would imagine that the ones they mention were statements the plaintiffs introduced in evidence, and that the government was unprepared with other statements that contradicted them, but I don’t know what the government defense was. Were they blindsided and/or unprepared? Did they offer other statements that the court ignored? Was there any argument at all? I don’t know, but I’d like to know. It sets a terrible precedent.

  3. Neo:

    Another fair criticism of this EO was issuing it before he had his AG confirmed so as to assure it would get defended properly. Maybe this was naivety in believing that the Justice Dept attorneys would do their jobs regardless of their personal beliefs.

    Should be a big time lesson learned here. They need to be very aggressive in jettisoning all Obama appointees in all departments as fast as possible even if they don’t have a ready replacement.

  4. These activist judges could care less about the facts, constitutional law or reasoned arguments. You might as well try to ‘reason’ a malignancy out of a body.

    They only care about the furtherance of the ideological agenda they embrace and they will continue to use their office toward that goal. They will not stop until sufficient consequence forces them to do so.

    It’s not just leftist lawyers and organizations that practice “lawfare”, activist judges enable it. They give lip service to the Constitution while working to undermine it.

  5. Griffin:

    Yes, that was another complaint of mine. I thought Sessions should have been in place. There was no real reason I could see to rush the EO to such an extent, and the haste backfired.

  6. I wrote once before that it literally would not have mattered how carefully the EO were constructed and issued, and it would not have mattered what anyone who supported Trump said publicly, however tangentially related to the issue at hand. Whatever EO Trump issued on this would have reached the same judges in the same time period, and would have been decided in the same way. I think at this point, even trying to point out the problems with the legal opinions is almost a waste of time.

  7. The shenanigans going on now in the courts is a lesson in why it is of the utter most importance that Consitutional judges are a majority of SCOTUS and the appellant courts. My limited research on this issue tells me the courts have very BIGLY limited authority to determine squat when it comes to who or who may not enter the USA.

  8. WRT the haste with which the EO was issued, I have wondered if Trump and his advisors saw something when they gained access to classified info that they thought required immediate action.

  9. Slightly off topic, but good news non the less:

    “Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, the blind firebrand Islamist cleric behind the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, has died in federal prison, Fox News has learned. He was 78.”

    One that BHO couldn’t or didn’t pardon and the judges didn’t spring.

  10. OM,

    The sheikh is dead, may all future sheikhs be born still born. I am a gentle man, but somethings bring out my inner hard ass berserker persona.

    Now pour a bit more wine in celebration because today I fulfilled my on line course to be a dog ambassador. I have 5 presentations lined up at local elementary schools to teach young kids how to be safe around dogs. Dogs and kids, joyful things happen where dogs and kids intersect.

  11. Neo:

    Thank you for this analysis. I am not sure I agree with your parsing of Giuliani’s words, but they are certainly as relevant as the words the judge teased out from that interview, so the interview can legitimately be interpreted either way.

    The more salient issue is whether or not the President has the right to make the determination he did, and whether or not he has to disclose all the information he had at hand when he made the decision. I think on that score Trump has it right and the judge has it wrong.

    But I wonder if it makes ay difference. The original TRO was shopped to a judge who would find against Trump, so the fact that his finding and that of the three-judge panel rejected the substance of the EO was a foregone conclusion. I fully expect the next EO to run up against the same dynamic.

    I think the more important issue is the manner in which a very large block of resistance has metastasized. I called them sore losers for a while, but the are much more. They (and I suspect there is substantial Soros backing involved) are working round the clock to influence the American public toward several conclusions: that Trump is mentally unstable, that the White House is in chaos (what new administration does NOT flounder?), that the Russians are and have been involved since the election, and that using all means at their disposal — the courts, the women’s march, the ‘Black Bloc’ at Berkeley, the nation’s largest media outlets — as weapons against Trump is both legitimate and patriotic.

    We have entered a new phase in presidential politics, where the election does not end the contest. I find this extremely troubling, and I would very much like to see some of the dissent crushed in the courts. If not, this will only get worse. Democrats have apparently not learned from Harry Reid’s moves to change the filibuster rules in the Senate that what goes around comes around. Some day the extra legal actions they are using against Trump will be used against them.

  12. Some day the extra legal actions they are using against Trump will be used against them.

    Remember when the democrats passed the special prosecutor law and used it against Nixon and then when the republicans used it against Clinton the democrats were screaming that was unfair.

  13. I believe I remember seeing Seattle judge Robart make the same claim; that he “knew” the intent of the EO because of the Giuliani interview. So much for black letter law. Maybe tea leaves and tarot cards would now be of help to our post-modern judges.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>