Trump’s SCOTUS Pick Might Just Give Him Trouble in the Courts

Feb 7, 2017

By Ruby Mellen & Emily Tamkin

President Donald Trump has chosen 49-year-old Colorado Circuit Judge Neil Gorsuch of the 10th court of appeals to fill the vacant U.S. Supreme Court seat of late Justice Antonin Scalia. The pick is expected to appease traditional conservatives, as Gorsuch mostly fits Scalia’s mold in his education, opinion, and — apparently — “lyrical writing style.”

And it is expected to mollify some liberals, who will “find very little to fault,” according to Mark Hansen, a former partner of Gorsuch at Kellogg Huber Hansen, an elite D.C.-based litigation boutique. Certainly, he was considered appealing to both parties in 2006, when he was confirmed by a unanimous voice vote in the Senate.

But what might it mean for America’s foreign policy — and for citizens around the world?

It’s difficult to read the tea leaves on the international impact Gorsuch’s seat on the bench will have, given that his experience has been so domestically focused. But what seems likely is that Gorsuch, who is a strict supporter of delivering verdicts based on the constitution as it was written, is also wary of executive overreach.

Continue reading by clicking the name of the source below.

37 comments on “Trump’s SCOTUS Pick Might Just Give Him Trouble in the Courts

  • Somewhat irritating that I am required to register to the source of this articles’ website before I’m able to read the full article.
    Aside form this, I am sure that this won’t be the only decision that backfires and it most certainly won’t be the first. Trump is a time bomb shot out of a loose cannon.



    Report abuse

  • White Tim

    I’m not sure why you had to register over there. When I click on the gray box above that says “foreign policity” I go straight to the rest of the article above. Try that and see if it works for you.



    Report abuse

  • I think the source site grants your first visit a trial use, but forces registration the second time around. This was my experience at least. And, of course, in the interest of testing, I didn’t read the article on my first visit.

    From what I’ve gathered, the president is indeed within his executive right to implement this travel ban. There was some legislation in 1952 that grants the president ultimate authority on who can come into the country and who can’t, within certain limits. There was some additional legislation in 1964 that dialed the limits back a bit. What this boils down to though is the president can discriminate based on geography.

    The Trump Administration used some data compiled by the Obama Administration that indicates these 7 countries as terrorist hotspots. Essentially, conditions in these countries are so bad that anyone can board a plane bound for the U.S.

    Now, before any members here spout off about the merits of Trump’s decision, please recognize that he is privy to classified information that we, and the media, are not.



    Report abuse

  • I’ll also paraphrase Steve Gern here. Steve is a marine that was in Iraq, but was flown out after his down-to-earth commentary on the travel ban went viral and jeopardized his safety there. Here’s the gist of what he said to the Iraqi citizens he was speaking to:

    “If I walked into town, the local populace (not ISIS, etc.) would snatch me up, torture, and kill me within an hour. If you would do this to me in your country, why should I let you into my country? Why should I believe that you would behave any differently in my country, if given the chance to kill an American?”

    Hopefully I didn’t butcher Steve’s commentary here.



    Report abuse

  • #3 , #4 : Essentially, conditions in these countries are so bad that
    anyone can board a plane bound for the U.S. … “If I walked into
    town, the local populace (not ISIS, etc.) would snatch me up, torture,
    and kill me within an hour. Why should I believe that you would behave
    any differently in my country, if given the chance to kill an
    American?”

    Not quite understood this comments but America has been killing inocent people and making wars around the world for decades (Vietnam, Corea, Chile, Argentina, Persian gulf, Irak, Afganistan…). So Americans crash into a someone house with they invented stories how they have to do it, and then they are surprised if people would like to kill them for that?! America have crushed over decades into the homes that are thousands kilometers away from usa, and where people were minding their own business in their own countries. But it is allowed for Americans to invade someone else’s home and not other way around. When it is other way around it is called terorism but when American do it they call it patriotism.



    Report abuse

  • Michael Rohde #4
    Feb 7, 2017 at 10:08 pm

    “If I walked into town, the local populace (not ISIS, etc.) would snatch me up, torture, and kill me within an hour. If you would do this to me in your country, why should I let you into my country? Why should I believe that you would behave any differently in my country, if given the chance to kill an American?”

    America waged Bush’s groundless war and killed thousands of Iraqis directly or indirectly, and still has troops on the ground and in the air.

    As a consequence some Iraqis who worked with the US are in serious danger in exactly the position of person making this quote illustrates.

    It is a disgrace, that if they are fleeing ISIS as refugees as a result of helping America or being associated with Americans, they should be banned by Trump because his administration is too incompetent to sort out a proper screening procedures, and too incompetent to recognise and respect the existing procedures which seem to take months or years of investigations to issue visas.

    As with many other regulations on pollution climate etc., Trump’s ignorance and inability to understand administration, science, or international relations, is not a valid reason to gratuitously abolish working laws and regulations – leaving a chaotic void!

    @3 – Now, before any members here spout off about the merits of Trump’s decision, please recognize that he is privy to classified information that we, and the media, are not.

    I thought one of the complaints from the CIA and secret service, was his failure to attend briefings, or consult, before making public statements!



    Report abuse

  • With the above non-sequitur arguments aside, let’s spell this out:

    Proactively securing our borders is NOT about WHY our enemies want to kill us. It’s about the FACT that they want to kill us.

    Alan4discussion, with your ad hominem remarks about Trump also aside, I’ll reiterate:

    We, along with the media, are utterly ignorant with respect to intel on the matter. The law, specifically 8 U.S.C. 1182f, is rather clear on the president having the ultimate authority to temporarily ban aliens from geographies of his, or in this case Obama’s, choosing.

    I believe the notoriously liberal 9th Circuit court will put their partisan, butthurt pride before the security of the American people and rule against the travel ban. Then it will go to the Supreme Court where the law will prevail.

    Then, yet again, I’ll celebrate the democratic party further exposing itself and pounding additional nails in its well-deserved, long-overdue coffin.



    Report abuse

  • Michael Rohde #8
    Feb 8, 2017 at 1:13 pm

    Proactively securing our borders is NOT about WHY our enemies want to kill us. It’s about the FACT that they want to kill us.

    Unfortunately those who are too incompetent to study the existing safeguards, too incompetent to identify the countries whose citizens have launched attacks in the past, and too incompetent to gather expert advice on how to tackle these complex problems, are very unlikely to produce any useful solutions by bypassing all the usual scrutiny checks and safeguards and ignoring legal and specialist security advice while trying to impose the half-baked pseudo-solutions!

    Alan4discussion, with your ad hominem remarks about Trump also aside,

    It is a classic propagandist “alternative fact” ploy, to pretend and assert that constructive criticism based on researched information, is simply an ad-hominem attack!

    Michael Rohde #9 – Feb 8, 2017 at 1:17 pm
    Okay, I probably cited the wrong law. Good lord is that stuff complex!

    It is:- which is perhaps, why pretending that criticism those who illustrate their incompetence, is an ad-hominem, simply indicates a lack of research or grasp of the subjects involved, so it is simply cheerleading for individuals without any understanding!

    BTW: – Not being an American, I only look at issues, and have no loyalties to either Democrats or Republicans – so politically labelling particular views, makes no impression on me when I evaluate their merits.

    I’ll reiterate:
    We, along with the media, are utterly ignorant with respect to intel on the matter.

    You may be! – That does not mean everyone else is!

    Trump and his bunch of incompetents are on record making a host of statements which are easily identified as incompetent or false, by any experts in the subjects referred to! (Judges, scientists, diplomats, economists, etc).

    Trump’s letters to Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond, and the court actions Trump took and lost in the UK, made him a laughing stock long before he stood as a presidential candidate!



    Report abuse

  • Alan4discussion, you continue to criticize the travel ban as if you’re privy to the classified intel behind it. Trashing Trump’s competence as a means to discredit the travel ban is a classic textbook ad hominem maneuver. Trump might be a dolt, but this doesn’t guarantee that his conclusions will be in error.

    By the way, I don’t think Trump is incompetent. When a reality TV show host demolishes the democratic/media party, while spending half the amount of its campaign expense, and runs against republican party in some respects, only to win the presidency in the end, it’s highly unlikely such a person is an idiot.



    Report abuse

  • Michael Rohde #11
    Feb 8, 2017 at 2:17 pm

    Alan4discussion, you continue to criticize the travel ban as if you’re privy to the classified intel behind it.

    Anyone who had sought expert intelligence or operational advice and had the competence to use it, would not have made such amateurish mistakes!

    Trashing Trump’s competence as a means to discredit the travel ban is a classic textbook ad hominem maneuver.

    Nope! Judging actions on their merits and considering independent assessments by experts, is not ad-hom!
    Neither is comparing written quotes and records with the factual information which they contradict!

    Trump might be a dolt, but this doesn’t guarantee that his conclusions will be in error.

    The probabilities of getting complex issues correct by random chance, are minimal, so you really should give up this wishful thinking!

    Most of his appointments to his cabinet are lunatic!
    They are people with less than zero competence in those subject areas!
    Not only do they have no relevant skills, but they (on record) actually deny the facts and expert views which those departments need to operate!



    Report abuse

  • Michael Rohde #11

    Alan4discussion, you continue to criticize the travel ban as if you’re
    privy to the classified intel behind it.

    If such intel existed, would you not have expected Trump to have referred to it?
    Trump?
    Or his press speaker?
    Or his attorneys at the original court case?
    Or his attorneys at the appeal heard yesterday?

    Not the contents of the intel, of course. But simply a statement that such intel existed?

    Has anyone made such a claim? Anyone?



    Report abuse

  • Alan4discussion, arguing that a stupid person will necessarily arrive at a stupid conclusion is attack, plain and simple.

    Marco, you do realize the Obama Administration compiled classified data that absolutely an ad hominem identifies the 7 ban-affected countries, right? I can’t speak to why Trump or others are not referring to it, if that’s truly the case.

    Again, let’s be clear on this: whether you like it or not, the law IS on Trump’s side.



    Report abuse

  • Michael Rohde #14

    Marco, you do realize the Obama Administration compiled classified
    data that identifies the 7 ban-affected countries, right? Do you
    expect the details of that data to be disclosed to the public?

    The details? Certainly not – I said as much in my previous comment. But if Trump had been given such intelligence, I would certainly have expected him or his attorneys to have mentioned the fact in his defence. Would it not be perverse to go to two courts in an attempt to defend his policy and for his attorneys not to mention the existence of intelligence that would constitute irrefutable justification for it?

    Again, let’s be clear on this: whether you like it or not, the law IS
    on Trump’s side.

    Well, one court has already disagreed with you on this. The appeal court hasn’t sounded particularly impressed with the Trump case so far, but we’ll see what its verdict is. It may end up before the supreme court. But the very fact that it might have to go that high would suggest that it’s not quite as clear-cut as you claim.

    Just out of interest, if it were to go to the supreme court and the court were to find against Trump, would you accept that the policy was unlawful?



    Report abuse

  • Bah, stupid drag-and-drop. I seriously wish I could disable it for my touchpad.

    Marco, I meant to say the following:
    You do realize the Obama Administration compiled classified data that identifies the 7 ban-affected countries, right? I can’t speak to why Trump or others are not referring to it, if that’s truly the case.

    (sorry for my slew of posts)



    Report abuse

  • Marco, sorry for fumbling the conversation here. I edited my post after I saw that you weren’t referring to the contents of the classified data. If it’s true that such data isn’t being referred to, or presented, in the court hearings, I can only assume it’s due to the classified nature of the intel. Again, I don’t know.

    Technically, per the law referenced above (my reference isn’t 100% accurate — it’s really close), the president has the executive authority on the matter and shouldn’t have to present the intel or even reference it.

    If the supreme court were to rule against Trump, I’d expect a concise explanation of how this particular law doesn’t apply to Trump’s travel ban. In the absence of such an explanation, I will assume politics is to blame.



    Report abuse

  • I am aware that the Obama administration had intel that identified the existence of jihadist activity within those countries, yes.

    Not, however, of any known direct threat to the USA that might justify a blanket ban.

    By contrast, there are a number of countries from which actual terrorists have come and have committed actual terrorist attacks in the US and have actually killed US citizens; countries on the alert list of intelligence agencies around the world – yet these are not covered by the travel ban.

    Taken together, this would not appear to point to credible terrorist risk as the reason behind the ban.

    I realise you cannot speak for Trump. I would merely wish that you might at least acknowledge that, if the ban is based on specific intelligence reports, his failure to refer to their existence is, to put it mildly, rather odd.

    To return to my question: will you accept the verdict of whichever court is the last to rule on the legality of the ban (whether that’s the appeal court or goes all the way to the supreme court)?



    Report abuse

  • Michael Rohde #16
    Feb 8, 2017 at 3:45 pm

    Alan4discussion, so General Mattis is a lunatic?

    He is known as “Mad Dog”!

    And he’s unqualified for his position? He has no skills relevant to military defense?

    No!
    He is one of the few Trump appointments who actually has some relevant qualifications in the subject area of his allotted responsibilities.



    Report abuse

  • Michael Rohde #17
    Feb 8, 2017 at 3:48 pm

    Arguing that a stupid person will necessarily arrive at a stupid conclusion is an ad hominem attack, plain and simple.

    That is of course a strawman claim.
    It is also backwards.

    The stupid decision is stupid because it is dysfunctional and fails to address its stated objectives. – a view confirmed by several independent experts!

    The individual responsible is stupid:-

    a) because having failed to seek, or listen to, expert advice, he made this stupid decision.

    and…

    b) Because he is on record as having made a whole string of reckless or wrong stupid decisions in the past!

    Most of the appointments of unqualified perverse people to senior positions in his cabinet are stupid decisions!

    His hyped image on (un)reality TV, is entertainment, and has nothing to do with practical capability with big issues in the real world.

    Trump is simply a know-it-all rebel against all forms of authority. – Scientific expert authority, administrative authority, international laws, treaties and agreements, codes of conduct, judges and legal authorities, financial regulatory authorities, and assorted government and industry regulative authorities.

    He has no understanding of how the regulatory mechanisms which co-ordinate the works of large technically advanced populations or businesses work, so he simply seeks to destroy that which he can’t or won’t make the effort to understand, and on which he places no value.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38881873

    A group of 97 US tech companies have filed a legal document stating that President Trump’s immigration ban affects their operations and “inflicts significant harm” on business.

    The 97 signatories include Apple, Facebook and Microsoft but not Amazon or Tesla.

    The document is an amicus brief, which allows parties not directly involved in a case but who feel they are affected by it, to give their view.



    Report abuse

  • Michael Rohde #20
    Feb 8, 2017 at 4:02 pm

    If the supreme court were to rule against Trump, I’d expect a concise explanation of how this particular law doesn’t apply to Trump’s travel ban. In the absence of such an explanation, I will assume politics is to blame.

    Perhaps you should have a look at Trump’s 3 times loser actions in Scottish court actions, and appeals against judges’ decisions,
    which ended with the UK Supreme Court throwing out his appeals!
    Some of us have seem his antics with courts before!

    Mr Trump made a series of legal challenges in the Scottish courts and then took the fight to the UK’s Supreme Court in London.
    The Supreme Court judges delivered a unanimous ruling which dismissed Donald Trump’s objection



    Report abuse

  • . . . And for his next inappropriate conflict of interest!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38912247

    Mr Trump tweeted that “Ivanka has been treated so unfairly” by clothing retailer Nordstrom.

    A Democratic senator called the post “inappropriate” and an ex-White House ethics tsar dubbed it “outrageous”.

    The tweet, which was sent by Mr Trump’s @realDonaldTrump account was then retweeted by the official @POTUS account.



    Report abuse

  • Alan4discussion #26
    Feb 8, 2017 at 5:46 pm

    . . . And for his next inappropriate conflict of interest!

    … . . . and for his previous ones!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38069298

    Donald Trump: A list of potential conflicts of interest

    The Trump Organization is an umbrella company for Donald Trump’s hundreds of investments in real estate, brands and other businesses.

    As head of the executive branch and a business owner, he would have the ability to influence both US policy and government agencies to benefit his bottom line.

    Presidents are not subject to the same conflict of interest rules as other government employees, and previous commanders-in-chief have placed their investments into a blind trust to prevent any question of corruption.

    Mr Trump has said his adult sons will run the Trump Organization during his presidency, but they are also members of his transition team and have sat in on meetings with foreign leaders.

    The president-elect has also said he will “be leaving my great business in total,” but has not specified what this means in practice nor announced any major changes.

    Ethics experts have urged Trump to liquidate his business holdings so that he can avoid any appearance of a conflict.

    American conflicts of interest

    40 Wall Street
    The Trump Organization owns the right to lease the space in this office building in Manhattan – and makes money from the rent paid to the building.

    According to Bloomberg News, there are five ongoing federal investigations into current or former tenants of 40 Wall Street, mostly for securities fraud.

    Those investigations are headed up by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and Mr Trump will appoint a new SEC chair once he takes office.

    Dakota Access Pipeline

    Sioux tribes and allies have been protesting for months to prevent the Dakota Access pipeline from being built under water supplies near the Standing Rock reservation.

    Trump had a partial investment – somewhere between $500,000 and $1m – in the parent company of the firm building Dakota Access pipeline, Energy Transfers Partners.

    Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks says Mr Trump has sold his stock in Energy Transfer Partners. But another one of Trump’s stock holdings, Phillips 66, owns a 25% share in the project.

    It’s unclear if the president-elect has also sold his stock in Phillips 66, as his last financial disclosure was in May.

    The US Army Corps of Engineers and the interior department have delayed a decision on the future of the pipeline until they can consult further with other local communities.

    Mr Trump’s political appointee to head the interior department could ultimately be responsible for the decision.

    . . . and guess what the decision was?????

    Deutsche Bank

    One of Trump’s major lenders on his real estate projects is Deutsche Bank.

    The bank is currently in negotiations with the US justice department to settle a case involving misleading buyers when it sold mortgage bonds backed by risky loans.

    If Deutsche Bank does not settle by inauguration day, Mr Trump’s administration would be in charge of the negotiations.

    The FCC
    The president-elect will have another job title beyond “commander-in-chief”: executive producer. He will continue to have a “big stake” in The Celebrity Apprentice, which airs on NBC, linking Mr Trump’s business interests with the network.

    NBC and its parent company, Comcast, is regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Mr Trump will need to appoint two commissioners to the agency.

    General Service Administration

    The Trump Organization leases the Old Post Office Building from US government’s General Services Administration (GSA) for the Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC.Trump as president is both “landlord and tenant” of this building, says Steven Schooner, who along with Daniel Gordon, has called on Trump to end the lease.

    The 60-year lease will likely involve renegotiations – and the person responsible for setting the rent prices would ultimately report to the head of the GSA, a Trump appointee.In addition, the lease bars any federal employee, including elected officials, from benefitting from contracts with the government.

    Meanwhile. the hotel has already been pitched to foreign diplomats as a place to stay while in Washington, raising concerns that foreign governments could see booking expensive rooms at the Trump International as a way to gain favour with the Trump administration.

    National Labor Relations Board

    On 3 November, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled that Trump International Hotel Las Vegas – which Trump co-owns – broke the law by refusing to negotiate with a hotel workers’ union.

    The hotel appealed the case to a higher court. But eight other labour disputes involving the Las Vegas hotel are currently before the board.

    Trump will appoint two empty seats on the five-person board after he becomes president, and the NLRB is facing an unprecedented situation on how to rule on disputes that will affect the president’s business.

    The list just goes on and on …. . . . . . (see the link)



    Report abuse

  • Mr. Rohde (Marco, others):

    Let’s be pragmatic, shall we? Bottom line: the travel ban is not likely to work, that is, to make us a whit safer; it might, however, make it easier for isis to recruit. —It is merely an attempt to solidify his base, and to test the limits of his reach, and to undermine the authority of the courts (as Hitler did) – on his way towards tyranny, towards eliminating all checks and opposition. A registry and internment camps will be the next logical step. Dissent amongst the people will be his final target.

    The constitutionality of the ban is not so cut and dried. Conservative legal scholars like Dershowitz think that it is partially unconstitutional. It imposes undue hardship on innocent families.

    It is, in my view, the arbitrary deployment of law, a mark of neofascism.

    On another thread, someone posted an article. The author suggests putting facts aside and addressing the emotions of Trump’s supporters. I ask you this, Mr. Rohde: why do feel you have to support someone who has appointed a man like Pruitt, who clearly wants to terminate the EPA? And why do you feel confident that giving huge tax breaks for the wealthiest amongst us will create jobs when there is no evidence to support that? And this would be at the expense of our safety nets. Why do you like the idea of getting rid of much needed financial oversight (Dodd-Frank)? (The Wells-Fargo scandal would have gone unnoticed without Dodd-Frank!) Why do you feel you must support a man who hires an education secretary who has no interest in improving our public schools? Why do you feel like you have to support a man who lies all the time? (And don’t mention Hillary; that is an evasion.) Tell me why you feel that that is all in the best interest of the American public and our future and our children’s future?

    What does Trump represent to you?

    “I really am a pessimist. I’ve always felt that fascism is a more natural governmental condition than democracy. Democracy is a grace. It’s something essentially splendid because it’s not at all routine or automatic. Fascism goes back to our infancy and childhood, where we were always told how to live. We were told, Yes, you may do this; no, you may not do that. So the secret of fascism is that it has this appeal to people whose later lives are not satisfactory.”

    ― Norman Mailer

    I agree with you about one thing. Trump ran an amazing campaign. Yes, he pandered; but he did run an astonishingly effective campaign. He demolished all of the Republicans, dismantled them one by one. The rest is history. What he did is very hard to do.

    Regards,

    Dan



    Report abuse

  • Dan #28
    Feb 8, 2017 at 6:10 pm

    I agree with you about one thing. Trump ran an amazing campaign. Yes, he pandered; but he did run an astonishingly effective campaign. He demolished all of the Republicans, dismantled them one by one. The rest is history. What he did is very hard to do.

    It is not at all hard for someone who is already well known on TV to get loads of free publicity. –
    especially if they have money and connections.
    Those who know nothing of policy vote for a face the know!
    (Arnie Schwarzenegger for governor??)



    Report abuse

  • Dan, I’m going to answer your one question that isn’t loaded. To me, Trump represents a threat to the political establishment, which is obviously in bed with mainstream media. I believe he understands the value and importance of small government, secure borders, and legal immigration. Also, he doesn’t tolerate political correctness, nor the “everyone gets a trophy” attitude, both of which I’m thoroughly sick of. Lastly, he understands that handouts don’t motivate humans. Nor is he willing to reward failure.

    I do, of course, have real concerns with Trump in some areas, which you referenced: education (DeVos) and environment (Pruitt). As for your financial criticism, I don’t know enough to have a strong opinion there. What I will say though is that I don’t think Trump would stand for something such as the TARP bailouts. And he does appear to be bringing jobs back to this country. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the stock markets appear to like Trump.

    Alan4discussion, regarding our ad hominem disagreement, you’re simply unwilling to admit you’re wrong. Suggesting one’s conclusion is wrong because you think he or she is stupid is a classic, textbook example of said fallacy. Save yourself the 100+ word response here and watch SNL’s Sean Spicer skit instead.



    Report abuse

  • Michael Rohde #30
    Feb 8, 2017 at 7:19 pm

    Alan4discussion, regarding our ad hominem disagreement, you’re simply unwilling to admit you’re wrong.

    Oh dear! You really don’t get this do you!?
    An ad hominem attack is an UNEVIDENCED attack on the person, not a competent criticism of their actions or abilities.
    Ad-hominem, is the sort of attack Trump incompetently made with “so called judge” comment about a judge with years of standing!

    When an examiner marks student work as a FAIL, this is NOT an ad-hominen attack!
    It is an objective evaluation of the presented documents!

    Many of Trump’s twitter comments are Ad-homs at the intellectual level of a spiteful 13 year old!

    Suggesting one’s conclusion is wrong because you think he or she is stupid is a classic, textbook example of said fallacy.

    You have simply presented my comment backwards!
    I am suggesting he is stupid BECAUSE he repeatedly and habitually makes comments with wrong conclusions based on wrong assumptions, using cherry-picked propagandist made-up pseudo-facts, from dishonest and fanciful sources – some of whom he has put in charge of government departments.

    I already explained this @#24!



    Report abuse

  • Michael Rohde #14
    Feb 8, 2017 at 3:34 pm

    Again, let’s be clear on this: whether you like it or not, the law IS on Trump’s side.

    It may come as a surprise to you, but judges do actually know what the laws says, regardless of your opinion or Trump’s opinion on what the law says!

    I see that as in the Scottish courts and the UK Supreme Court, more judges have unanimously decided to throw out Trump’s appeal against the first judge’s ruling in the lower court! – as HIS lawyers have failed to present credible evidence!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38927175

    A US appeals court has rejected a bid to reinstate President Donald Trump’s ban on visitors from seven mainly Muslim countries.

    The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals said it would not block a lower-court ruling that brought the president’s executive order to a halt.

    Mr Trump made the order because he said national security was at risk.

    But in its ruling, the court said there was insufficient evidence of a terror threat from these countries.

    “The government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States,” it said.

    It also rejected the argument that the president had sole discretion to set immigration policy.

    “Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the executive order, the government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all,” said the ruling. “We disagree, as explained above.”

    Donald Trump’s lawyers did not make their case. In fact, according to three Ninth Circuit judges, they didn’t even really try to make their case.
    Rather than explaining why the temporary travel ban was needed, the administration argued that the president’s authority on immigration was so sweeping that they didn’t have to explain why the order was necessary.

    According to the court, the government was unable to say why Mr Trump’s ban addressed a pressing national security threat that a temporary stay of the order would worsen. The lawyers for the challenging states, on the other hand, convinced the judges that re-imposing the order at this point would create further chaos by infringing on the due process rights of those on US soil, regardless of their immigration status.

    By issuing a unanimous, unsigned opinion, the judges avoid accusations of partisan bias, as one of the three was a Republican appointee.



    Report abuse

  • Marco #13
    Feb 8, 2017 at 2:59 pm

    Michael Rohde #11
    Alan4discussion, you continue to criticize the travel ban as if you’re
    privy to the classified intel behind it.

    If such intel existed, would you not have expected Trump to have referred to it?

    It seems that when such alleged privileged information was asked for in court (@#33) the Trump lawyers had nothing to present!

    Trump’s SCOTUS Pick Might Just Give Him Trouble in the Courts.

    In fact Trump’s casual disregard for the constitution, due process, legal requirements, and his proliferation of sloppy, half-baked executive orders, looks like he is going to progressively encounter more and more “trouble with the courts”!



    Report abuse

  • Michael Rohde #11
    Feb 8, 2017 at 2:17 pm

    By the way, I don’t think Trump is incompetent.

    Keepp watching the buffoonery and disaster areas unfolding, and his denials and inability to learn from or correct his mistakes!

    It is only a matter of time before most of the governments of the world and the more competent sections of the media, recognise him as incompetent and unsuited to the post of president!

    When a reality TV show host demolishes the democratic/media party, while spending half the amount of its campaign expense, and runs against republican party in some respects, only to win the presidency in the end, it’s highly unlikely such a person is an idiot.

    Entertaining the public with outlandish buffoonery is his forte, where those looking for entertainment, off the cuff rhetoric, and stunts, will offer applause.

    Those who expect competence at organising legal structures for effectively running a country, are seeing much hype and bragging, but nothing much is being actually delivered, except chaos. excuses, and attempts to blame other people for failures!

    The art of political leadership is not how fast a politician can rush to vote or sign papers!
    It is how competent and thorough, they are at reading the plans and papers to check for proper consultation, expert input, correcting errors, and effective planning, BEFORE they approve and sign them! –
    In Trump’s case – an epic fail! –
    He does not even recognise his flawed methodology – but those with Dunning-Kruger confidence and no idea at all, seldom do!



    Report abuse

  • Gorsuch comes across as false and emotionally hollow. I think he’s a snake in the grass. He keeps hiding, using judicial integrity as an excuse to say nothing; and as a result, you know no more about him after a series of tough questions as you did before.

    But Franken penetrated his armor – just a tad.

    Franken did a brilliant job of exposing Trump’s supreme court nominee as a right wing fanatic so blinded by his right wing ideology that he let common sense and basic human decency go by the wayside.

    Read the facts of the case he is referring to in which Gorsuch supported the right of a trucking company to fire a trucker who refused to continue to drive because the brakes on his rig had frozen-this is truly appalling!

    I wonder how this will go over with Trump’s blue collar base.

    Scroll down page for video, and watch at least first fifteen minutes of video.

    http://www.salon.com/2017/03/22/al-frankens-grilling-of-gorsuch-exposes-the-heartless-cruelty-behind-conservative-legal-philosophy/



    Report abuse

  • Laurie

    Did you watch Maddow? Sanders was good tonight, wasn’t he?

    He mentioned states like Kentucky, a red (and poor) state, McConnell’s state. They rely heavily on federal assistance, and a lot of people there benefit from the ACA, etc. The people there all vote against their own interests; they are locked in; but if they can be reached that’ll change. The Democratic party needs to get the message out in these states.

    Then we will see the beginning of a real revolution. (He said it better.)



    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.