Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
President Trump issued an Executive Order on immigration last month, pursuant to a law passed by Congress and signed by President Obama two years ago. A Federal judge in California blocked it.
President Trump issued a revised Executive Order that took into account the judge’s objections. A Federal judge in Hawaii has blocked the new order on the grounds that a Muslim Imam living in Hawaii may have a First Amendment right to invite anybody from anywhere in the world to come to Hawaii to visit him, if he feels like it, and therefore the United States government has no power to stop any invited guest from entering the country.
This is sheer fantasy, of course, utterly unsupported by statute or any prior interpretation of the Constitution. If it went up the ladder to the Supreme Court, it would be . . . well, now wait a minute. That court is divided 4-4 because of the Scalia vacancy. We can’t say what would happen. Neil Gorsuch was nominated to fill the Scalia seat. Did that happen?
No. The Establishment Republicans in Congress – the ones who supported Ted Cruz and Paul Ryan for President – the ones who swore “Never Trump” – are in charge of the Supreme Court nomination. It’s the single most important thing they have on their plate but it’s stalled.
They’re busy, you see. They never thought Trump would win so they didn’t bother making plans to repeal Obamacare. Now that he’s dropped this tar-baby in their laps, they’re atwitter over how to appear to be doing something to keep their phony-baloney jobs without doing anything that might make the New York Times call them names. It’s a conundrum, you see, which might possibly go away if they wait long enough and Trump is impeached.
I read the other day that North Korea claims to have a nuclear missile capable of reaching Hawaii. Reeeeeeealy? Hmmmmmmmm.
Joe Doakes
Not sure regular commenter Mammuthus Primigenius would approve – and losing Hawaii but keeping California just leaves the country in the same boat we’re in.
Congress has the authority to halt immigration by passing a law. The president has the authority to change vetting procedures. But doesn’t the President have to show that the threat immigrants pose has grown dramatically in the recent past in order to justify his negation of the intent of Congress in writing the existing law?
“But doesn’t the President have to show that the threat immigrants pose has grown dramatically in the recent past in order to justify his negation of the intent of Congress in writing the existing law?”
No.
Show to whom?
Your words imply that some other government entity (like the courts) has the authority to review and thumbs-up or thumbs-down the EO.
The three branches of our government are co-equal.
I oppose this executive order for the same reason I opposed Obama’s orders. They usurp the authority of the Congress.
I will bet a brand-new nickel that you didn’t read either of the executive orders, nor the enabling legislation cited in those orders, before posting this comment.
I will bet another brand-new nickel that you never once objected to any executive order issued by any president on the grounds that it usurped the authority of congress, before Trump became president.
Prove me wrong.
The courts proved you wrong.
I’ve never heard of a judicial opinion proving anything.
I think you may have overlooked the essential point. With Trump, optics and perception is everything. What is important is to show that he is acting (against Muslims, in this case). Actually accomplishing anything is utterly irrelevant. So he has to do something official and visible; doing something low key and effective would fail to accomplish the all-important optics.
You can see something similar on a lot of topics. This isn’t just a feature of the Muslim ban. It’s all about waving a red flag. And if that means losing court cases, well that just provides one more opportunity to rant to his base about something.
If you read the entirety of Judge Derrick Watson’s 43 page opinion, you will be impressed by how a fine legal mind works.
I think you may have overlooked the essential point.
Tiiiiiiimmmmmbbbbbeeeerrrrrrrr! Watch out for the falling goalposts…
Actually accomplishing anything is utterly irrelevant.
Priceless! JD, more insight for you how libturd brain operates. Wait, it ain’t operating – it is permanently stuck on stupid.
“With Trump, optics and perception is everything. ”
Unlike Obama? Unlike Hillary? This is a trivial truth.
You can believe that Donald J. Trump is the guy from the SNL sketches played by Alec Baldwin, or you can believe Donald J. Trump is the guy who made billions in a highly competitive industry, beat a half dozen seasoned pols to the GOP nomination and the presidency, destroying a pair of political dynasties on the way (three if you include minor-leaguer Kasich).
If you look at my comments here at SITD, you will know that I came to be a Trump defender late. I didn’t vote for the man. I thought he was the SNL version of Trump.
What changed my mind was his Ohio win. Kasich hates Trump so much, not only did he not endorse Trump and deny Trump Ohio’s GOP campaign machinery, he would have arrested and ejected Trump’s small Ohio campaign staff if he could have.
Trump won Ohio by eight points.
I learned to distrust everything the media says about Trump after the dishonest way his phone call with the Australian PM, Malcolm Turnbull. The US media, even the conservative US media, made Trump look like the SNL version — out of control, irrational, impetuous, ego-driven.
It was only by reading a few conservative blogs and news stories written by Aussies that I was able to get closer to a rational explanation for Trump’s dissing of the Australian PM.
Turnbull had had a problem with refugees to Australia from Muslim countries. He couldn’t handle them in such a way that international organizations would be happy, unless he got his Liberal Party base upset with him. In early 2016 Turnbull visited the US and got Obama to agree to take Turnbull’s troublesome refugees, a political problem solved for Turnbull. Turnbull also met with candidate Hillary, presumably to lock down the deal with her as well. Turnbull did not meet with Trump.
After Trump won,without consulting Trump, Turnbull announced the deal was still on. Trump was justifiably angry that Turnbull was going to dump his refugee problem on the US without so much as asking Trump’s approval.
I never saw the story explained this way in the American media.
I’ve also read American news stories that said that Merkel was non-plussed by Ivanka Trump’s presence at meetings between her and Trump’s foreign policy team. Only by reading foreign media did I learn that Merkel has no problem with Ivanka. They know one another. Ivanka Trump was the point person in arranging Merkel’s US visit.
The media, including Fox news, is not reliable when reporting on Trump, in matters large or small.
If Fox pulled every “analyst” from their slate who gave fake news, it would be nothing but bars and tone.
Emery Incognito on March 22, 2017 at 6:36 pm said:
If Fox pulled every “analyst” from their slate who gave fake news, it would be nothing but bars and tone.
I’m sure Dan Rather would agree.
If you read the entirety of Judge Derrick Watson’s 43 page opinion, you will be impressed by how a fine legal mind works.
Fresh from his infallible opinions as an expert on politics and economics re Brexit, here comes his expert opinion on legal opinions. Fact: Watson’s opinion just VALIDATED that Obamacare is unconstitutional as it pertains to coverage of abortion for Little Sisters. It is a very clear case of libturd justices being partisan hacks with zero, as in 0, respect for neither law nor Constitution. Would you like a turd sandwich with that crow you are choking on?
Emery, Judge Watson’s 43 page opinion was released just a couple of hours after the Trump memorandum was written. Fine legal mind? Bulls**t. He’d hardly had the chance to read the initial executive order, let alone write 43 pages about it. It’s the ravings of a guy who has his mind made up, and isn’t going to let facts get in the way, or the law.