Trump versus Judge Robart

Gezza posted:

Surprise, surprise – the DOTUS wants to direct all three branches of government.

The US’s first attempt at a ‘benevolent’ dictator, anyone?

 

Fox News: Trump calls judge’s halt on immigration ‘ridiculous;’ says will be’overturned!’

U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle ruled that Washington state and Minnesota had standing to challenge Trump’s executive order on immigration. So he issued the temporary, nationwide restraining order based on his opinion that the states showed their case is likely to succeed.

Trump issued the temporary ban following his winning campaign promise to further protect Americans from radical Islamic terrorism.

The State Department confirmed Saturday that it has reversed the executive order’s provisional revoking of visas, saying, “Those individuals with visas that were not physically cancelled may now travel if the visa is otherwise valid.”

The agency said it also is working closely with the Department of Homeland Security and their legal teams and will provide further updates as soon as information is available.

A purported 60,000 people from the affected countries have had their visas cancelled since the ban took effect last weekend.

The New York Times first reported Friday night that airlines have been told by the government to begin allowing these travelers on planes to the United States.

And Qatar Airways announced on its website Saturday that it has been directed by the U.S. government to permit formerly banned passengers to board U.S.-bound flights, as a result of the judge’s ruling.

Trump and his administration have tried to circumvent the normal legal checks on the power of the President, but and some battles have been won, but the war looks to be far from over.

 

Previous Post

42 Comments

  1. lurcher1948

     /  February 5, 2017

    Following the rule of law dosn’t exist in Trumps head

  2. America on the way to recovery from the guilt ridden sickling liberals , No fake refugees and coloniosers ro New Zealand

  3. Makes you wonder as to who promoted that particular Judge.
    And why his opinion differs from President Trumps legal team..
    Oh dear, shock horror, snow flake politics

    • lurcher1948

       /  February 5, 2017

      GWB installed him dueing his term.He IS a “so called” judge dispensing the law and trump will have to get used to his brain farts being challenged

    • Joe Bloggs

       /  February 5, 2017

      Such a shame when the constitution and the rule of law get in the way of a prima donna president…

      This judge’s opinion is the same as the Attorney General Sally Yates, who Trump fired. She too said the executive order was unconstitutional and therefore unlawful. She was fired for doing the right thing – upholding the law.

      Trump’s legal team is Steve Bannon and Rudy Giuliani – go figure. He didn’t consult his Attorney General. He didn’t consult his State Department or Homeland Security.

      Last year Trump made similarly baseless accusations against Judge Curiel (in the case involving Trump ‘University’) because of his ethnicity. Trump is simply hostile towards the rule of law and intent on triggering one constitutional crisis after another.

      Seems that thin-skinned Trump’s the real snowflake

      • David

         /  February 5, 2017

        “Such a shame when the constitution and the rule of law get in the way of a prima donna president…”

        You didn’t hear this much with Obama firing out EO’s like confetti. Perhaps there will be more interest in the limits of presidential power now.

        • Kitty Catkin

           /  February 5, 2017

          I wonder if anyone is still dimwitted enough to enrol in Trump ‘University’. If they do, they deserve all that they get-or don’t get, rather.

      • How well versed are you on the constitution, the power of executive orders and the reach of federal judgement? I don’t claim to be at all – far from it , but I’m aghast that emotive Trump-hate opinion continues to pass for legal expertise in here.

        There were two such cases one the same issue. One in Boston and that Seattle one. The Boston one ruled the temporary ban bona-fide.

        It is more than possible that Robarts will be overruled and it will be decided he overreached with his nationwide Injunction. There are plenty of precedents where Fe Court judges applying nationwide injunctions have been overruled.

        It appear the issue was judged ultimately on the issue of “rational basis” .

        Both judges rejected the position that the First Amendment prohibits the order; both rejected the position the Fifth Amendment prohibits the order; both rejected the position that Congressional statutes prohibit the order. Both rejected claims the order discriminated on the basis of speech or religion in any way that immigration law precludes or forbids.

        Both agreed all that mattered is whether the laws had a “rational basis.”

        The Boston judge and the Seattle judge disagreed. According to oral argument in Seattle, the Seattle judge interpreted that ‘rational basis review ‘requires the law-making branches of government tp “prove” with “facts” presented in court that their position is the correct one. However, as the Boston judge noted, this interpretation of the law — inviting the judicial branch to replace the elected branches of government — is directly contrary to precedent.
        There are many examples in law of this precedent and only one reason why the Seattle judge’s opinion is likely to lose out to the Executive Order.

        That’s just one point. Let’s not forget that Carter banned Iranians in 1980, Obama banned Iraqis in 2011, and Reagan, Bush and Clinton all exercised their alien exclusion authority at some point in time during their presidencies.

        America may be a nation founded by immigrants, but like any sovereign nation they have strictly restricted which immigrants they let in. It’s not before time that people stopped thinking it’s the right f every Tom, Dick and Mohammed to come to the States to live and work at will. The bombardment of it’s borders by millions of illegals would be unthinkable in NZ and Australia

  4. David

     /  February 5, 2017

    I get that the judge wants a full hearing but it seems a bit careless for the judge to presume he is better informed about the security situation than the DHS and grant a temporary stay of the order.
    57% of Americans support it and 32% oppose it, be interesting to see some polling in the UK where they seem particularly unhinged about Trump.

    • Anonymous Coward

       /  February 5, 2017

      Are you trying to say that the courts should make their decisions based on polling data rather than the constitution?

      • Brown

         /  February 5, 2017

        Yes, except when it involves things we like / don’t like as may be appropriate.

        • Gezza

           /  February 5, 2017

          For this judicial policy to be successful, the Courts will need to rule that their decision is that whatever each affected party wants is legally acceptable, & applicable to whichever other party the other parties want it to be applicable to. 👍

    • lurcher1948

       /  February 5, 2017

      Most yanks seem as thick as a piece of 4X2 and don’t know there’s a world out there,maybe that’s why they lose all their wars

      • What has that bigoted and wide sweeping opinion have to do with why a sovereign nation is not entitled to protect their borders?

  5. Alan Wilkinson

     /  February 5, 2017

    If the courts are going to constrain executive powers it will be interesting to see what lines the conservative Supreme Court judges draw. Presumably they will look hard at the constitutional separation of powers between Executive, Congress and States. That seems long overdue for examination to me but it would be interesting to hear some objective legal opinions.

    • Gezza

       /  February 5, 2017

      Good thinking. I will consider this over the next few hours and give you mine later today.

    • duperez

       /  February 5, 2017

      The courts will do what they are charged with doing according to the ways of thinking and processes they traditionally use.

      That could mean that their decisions ‘constrain executive powers’ where they see those powers exceeding laws. There are some solutions; changing the laws, getting rid of judges are a couple.

      The President and his supporters will think the courts are going out deliberately to thwart and constrain executive powers. Naturally the judges (and lawyers) involved on the other side will say that they are merely ‘following and applying the law.’

      The nuanced, delicate and subtle reading and application of legal argument are probably beyond Trump, and he certainly will have his hordes working to come up with ways of stomping all over those.

      Maybe a situation will be reached where some lawyer or judge assumes the position and status of another who stood up to brute power:

      • Gezza

         /  February 5, 2017

        Kind of like Al tries to do with me ? 😳

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  February 5, 2017

          That tank commander could learn a lot about Diversion from you, G.

          • Gezza

             /  February 5, 2017

            I’ve been subject to it, Al. The police have never had anything on me.

            My name came up once in a police investigation involving a misdemeanor by a group of my occasional acquaintances, in my early teens, but I was quickly eliminated from their enquiries due my absence from the scene of the crime at the time of the relevant actual witnessed misbehaviour.

            • Gezza

               /  February 5, 2017

              OOPS that should say “I’ve NEVER been subject to it, Al”.
              Quite an important omission, that one, as accidental omissions go.
              😳

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  February 5, 2017

              Another Freudian slip if ever I saw one, G. The speed of your absences obviously hasn’t diminished with advancing years.

            • Gezza

               /  February 5, 2017

              I think that occasion I was referring to above was one of the better examples of when it is wise to recognise when to pull a Polish Exit at exactly the right time.

            • Manufactured alibi eh? 😉

            • Gezza

               /  February 6, 2017

              I still remember that day vividly, trav. I must have been 12 or 13, Summer Holidays. I bumped into a group of about 8 boys from our street & the next street when I was out on a walk by the Waiwhakaiho River, minding my own business & enjoying a perfect sunny day. A couple of them were playmates from way back, but alliances had changed when I started attending the Catholic College and, them being Prebyterians & Anglicans, so basically pagans & not members of The One True Church, we didn’t hang out so much any more.

              Anyway Bob, the Criminal Mastermind, a big fat bad lad from around the corner, told me of their evil plan to pull off the crime of the century & break into the nearby Tennis Club pavillion. Being pagans, this wasn’t troubling the consciences of his associates, but it did trouble mine, & I had a bad feeling about it anyway – so although i’d been pleased to meet up with some mates, I mumbled excuses about having to feed the cat or something & scarpered.

              So, they broke in & heisted some cartons of coca cola & fanta & a $200 microphone, which Bob reportedly sold that same afternoon to some other teenage fence he knew for $2. Bob & two more were arrested the following morning, having been observed in the commission of this felony & good descriptions having been provided especially of the fat one.

              He told all the others, apparently, to say nothing. A police sergeant came in, asked who else was involved, & kicked the chair leg when Bob went all “you’ll get nuthin out of me, copper, I ain’t no snitch”. Bob immediately dobbed everyone in, & mentioned me, the bastard. Interviews with the other felons quickly established my innocence & I was not visited by the plods.

              This is when I learnt that if you are ever going to become a pagan, it’s a good idea to still remember the 7 commandments that keep you out of trouble down here.

  6. Anybody else actually checked the US Statute? It reads 9for what its worth):

    “…8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens

    (f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
    Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. …..”

    • Gezza

       /  February 5, 2017

      Wow – that judge must be a total idiot who has no clue at all about US law. You look like you might be a great researcher. Where does their law define what is meant by a class of alien?

      • Anyone not a citizen is an alien. It is the adjective that classifies them

        A legal alien is a non-citizen who is legally permitted to remain in a country. This is a very broad category which includes tourists, guest workers, legal permanent residents and student visa resident aliens.

        A nonresident alien is a non-citizen who is visiting a country, for example as a tourist, on business, entertainers, sportspeople or in the country to receive medical treatment.

        A resident alien is a non-citizen who has permanent resident status in a country.

        An enemy alien is a non-citizen who is a national of an enemy country
        .
        An illegal alien or ‘undocumented alien’ is a non-citizen who has entered a country through irregular migration,[2] for example entered illegally, or an alien who entered a country legally but who has fallen “out of status.”[3]

        wiki

        • Gezza

           /  February 6, 2017

          Well, let’s hope the Appeal Court judge has read Wikipedia before heer delivers hiser judgement on what a whool Robarts is.

  7. Zedd

     /  February 5, 2017

    If I was a traveler, from one of Mr T.s ‘banned 7’ I would be calling on the countries leaders to ‘return the favour’ & deny USA citizens access !

    Maybe also calling on all the other countries, he has named as ‘BAD DUDES’ to do likewise.

    • Gezza

       /  February 5, 2017

      I think Iran already has, Zedd. No doubt disappointing thousands of Christian touriste & thwarting their holiday plans.

      There was pressure from Muqtada Al-Sadr & some pollies in Iraq to do the same, but I think their corrup government there won’t do it because they need to stay sweet with the US & its “so-called” President, need air power, Special Forces, money etc? 😳