Moot & reboot: White House working on replacement travel-pause EO?

Spread the love

Loading

Ed Morrissey:

Has the White House decided to start over on its executive order on the “pause” involving visas and refugees from seven high-risk nations? After last night’s setback at the Ninth Circuit, some wondered whether the Trump administration should keep fighting to defend its original version, or moot the lawsuits under consideration by withdrawing the first EO and replacing it with a more defensible version that accounts for the judicial criticisms received by the first. Joe Scarborough reported on Morning Joe earlier that the White House has begun to work on that strategy.

Let’s call it moot & reboot:

In the previous hour, Alan Dershowitz laid out why the original order should prevail … but that the legal fight would take far too long to fight. “National security has to trump ego,” Dershowitz said, pun intended, and advised the White House to either write a completely new order or issue a supplemental order dealing with the legal challenges:

This would almost certainly moot the current lawsuits, but it seems like a no-brainer that more would follow. A new lawsuit might not land in Judge James Robart’s court, but plaintiffs would no doubt do some of the venue-shopping noted by the Morning Joe panel in the first clip to get another TRO, along with another appeal to a circuit court. Perhaps, though, a new EO will have better preparation and more bullet-proof language to avoid those tripwires, pushing courts into having little choice but to acknowledge the broad jurisdiction of the executive branch on entry policies.

If the original order and the TRO went to the Supreme Court, Dan McLaughlin argues that the Trump administration would sill have a good chance of overturning the TRO, if it wants to take the time to do so:

[T]he court concluded that the States of Washington and Minnesota had legal standing under Article III of the Constitution to bring a court case to challenge the order. Federal courts require that a party bringing a lawsuit have some personal stake in it; in general, you cannot literally make a federal case out of something that doesn’t affect you directly. The court wisely avoided ruling on the states’ flimsy claim to “parens patriae” standing to represent every citizen of their state and then extend that to non-resident aliens, a theory foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent dating back to 1923. It focused more narrowly on the states’ claim to represent state universities that were affected when current or planned faculty or students from the seven countries covered by the 90-day suspension in Section 3(c) of the order. That’s a reasonable enough ruling, as far as it goes, but it would normally not give them standing to challenge other aspects of the executive order in which they have no concrete interest, such as the 120-day suspension of the refugee program (Section 5(a)), the indefinite ban on Syrian refugees (Section 5(c)), or the provisions of the order requiring future consideration of religious-minority status for refugees claiming religious persecution (Sections 5(b) and 5(e)). Given that the appellate court upheld the injunction against all of those provisions, it had a duty under the Supreme Court’s decision in DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006), to decide whether each plaintiff has standing to challenge each government action. It did not.

The Ninth Circuit panel also concluded, without citing any support whatsoever, that the states had standing to challenge “religious discrimination” under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. More on this below, but it is worth noting that the court did not actually end up concluding that the Trump Administration had engaged in religious discrimination; it just found that it didn’t have enough time and evidence to justify reversing the district judge on that issue. A more considered appeal on this question would probably involve a more serious attempt to grapple with the extreme novelty of the argument that the Establishment Clause limits the scope of federal immigration law.

Be sure to read it all, as it includes some criticism of the Trump administration’s presentation to the Ninth Circuit. The question, though, is what will be the most efficient way in which to deal with the legal challenges — to keep fighting them head-on, or to do an end run around these initial obstacles by creating a new EO that sheds some of the potential vulnerabilities. The moot & reboot strategy looks like the smarter way to go, egos notwithstanding.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

18 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

We need to weed liberal activists judges out of our judicual system Vote snowflakes out now

Though this is a set back, notice the difference between Trump’s administration and Obama’s; Trump honored the law but when Obama’s illegal immigrant amnesty EO was stayed, he just ignored the stay and kept violating the law and Constitution.

Law vs lawless.

Congress should use its Constitutional power and break up the 9th circuit court for the good of the country

@Bill… Deplorable Me, #2:

Obama didn’t ignore the stay. Those parts of his order that were affected by Fifth Circuit Court decision were effectively blocked, which greatly frustrated his intentions to sort out some of the nation’s long-standing immigration problems. Obama then legally worked around the restrictions imposed by the ruling as best he could, which is what Trump should do. Ultimately, Obama’s immigration plan was blocked in the Supreme Court by a tie vote.

I doubt Trump will make good on his assertion that he’ll take this to the Supreme Court, even though he stated “I have no doubt that we’ll win that particular case” a few hours ago during his meeting with Shinzo Abe. It makes more sense to issue a modified directive.

Trump Drops HUGE Terror Bombshell as Dems Keep Obstructing
The Washington Standard.com ^ | Feb. 9, 2017 | Washington Standard

The White House has just released a list to Fox News containing the names of 24 REFUGEES who came from the 7 COUNTRIES affected by Trump’s TRAVEL BAN, and have been charged with TERRORISM!

This effectively exposes all of Obama’s intentional lies which he spewed in a desperate attempt to cover-up the shocking truth that we now know definitely and beyond any doubt…

Trump has been right all along…

(Excerpt) Read more at thewashingtonstandard.com …

California Goes Confederate

Threatening secession is far from the only thing that the Golden State has in common with the Old South. Over 60 percent of California voters went for Hillary Clinton — a margin of more than 4 million votes over Donald Trump.

Since Clinton’s defeat, the state seems to have become unhinged over Trump’s unexpected election.

“Calexit” supporters brag that they will have enough signatures to qualify for a ballot measure calling for California’s secession from the United States. Some California officials have talked of the state not remitting its legally obligated tax dollars to the federal government. They talk of expanding its sanctuary cities into an entire sanctuary state that would nullify federal immigration law.

Californians also now talk about the value of the old Confederate idea of “states’ rights.” They whine that their state gives far too much revenue to Washington and gets too little back. Residents boast about how their cool culture has little in common with the rest of the U.S. Some Californians claim the state could easily go it alone, divorced from the United States. Sound a bit familiar?

In December 1860, South Carolina seceded from the Union in furor over the election of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln did not receive 50 percent of the popular vote. He espoused values the state insisted did not reflect its own. In eerie irony, liberal California is now mirror-imaging the arguments of reactionary South Carolina and other Southern states that vowed to go it alone in 1860 and 1861.

Like California, South Carolina insisted it could nullify federal laws within its state borders. Like California, South Carolina promised to withhold federal revenues.

Like California, South Carolina and other Confederate states bragged that their unique economies did not need the Union.

(Excerpt) Read more at victorhanson.com ..

BREAKING: Muslim SPY RING Just Discovered In Our Government, Now Look What Is MISSING From The White House!

While President Trump can build a wall and ban terrorists from entering America, it appears as though malicious individuals are still managing to infiltrate us, thanks to the recklessness actions of Democrats in Congress. Now top secret information is missing from the White House after 3 Muslim individuals working with the Democrats managed to get their crooked hands on our country’s most highly-guarded intelligence documents, where they then funneled the information to an external server.

The disturbing report broke on Thursday night, after 3 Muslim brothers were fired from their IT jobs at the White House after their sick plot was discovered by several people in Congress. Fox News anchor Maria Bartiromo broke the story, discussing how an investigation has immediately been launched into the 3 brothers, Abid, Imran and Jamal Awan, where she disclosed just what is at stake after the trio managed to access our highest government secrets.

“They [the Muslims] were barred from computer networks at the House of Representatives on Thursday because they accessed Congressmen and Congress people’s computer networks unauthorized,” Bartiromo began. “At a minimum they were fired. At a minimum we know that they accessed computers unauthorized and they did so in foreign intelligence, foreign affairs and intelligence committees…. they were getting very important information, government information. They accessed these computers.

Even more horrifying is that it’s believed that these 3 Muslims, all hired by Democrats, are thought to have ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, with one of the brothers even having a criminal background. She went on:

“How is it possible that 3 brothers are hired, Muslim brothers…just saying, to work in Congress and deal with our most intelligent and sensitive information, number one? They were all making $160,000! Why were they paid so much? 22 years old…one of the guys, the other was 25. They’re making $160,000, $161,000 and $165,000. And one of them has a criminal background!

The Daily Caller has more:

Chiefs of staff for dozens of Democratic lawmakers who employed the four were informed last week that a criminal probe was underway into their use of congressional information technology systems, including the existence of an external server to which House data was being funneled, and into the theft of and overbilling for computer equipment.

There’s no doubt that these individuals have close ties with Obama, and were put in place to keep tabs on what’s going on in Washington. Obama infiltrated our government with several Muslim Brotherhood agents while in office, so why would he stop now? Not only was Obama’s closest adviser Valerie Jarret known to have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, but Obama appointed Muslim Brotherhood member Mohamed Elibiary as a senior member at the Department of Homeland Security, a man who tweeted his support for ISIS.

H/T [Daily Caller]

@Spurwing Plover: Only problem with voting the out is they are appointed by our representatives, not elected. Many appointments are used like bargaining chips, 2 empty seats and the backroom closed door bargaining begins, you vote to let a conservative get appointed and I vote for your liberal. Once in its damn near impossible to get them out. https://jonathanturley.org/2007/08/30/through-addictions-to-dementia-supreme-court-justices-have-refu

@July 4th American: Things like the security of sensitive information and incompetence or treason involving the hiring lack of vetting and background checks, should shock us, but its everyday a new discovery. It becomes more and more difficult to be surprised, shocked and outraged by new revelations.
This administration has a huge uphill battle.

@July 4th American, #7:

The source for this “breaking news” story is Center for Security Policy, an organization of far-right anti-Islamic nut cases. The story is pure propaganda, not news.

Center for Security Policy is an organization of conspiracy theorists fixated on the belief that jihadist plotters against the United States are descending upon us like a plague of locusts. While Islamic terrorist plotters undeniably exist, they’re not as numerous as locusts. There’s not a crazed jihadist extremist hiding behind every bush. The fact that some Muslims are undeniably terrorists does not mean that all Muslims are terrorists, any more than the fact that some Christians are undeniably pedophiles means that all Christians are pedophiles.

This reminds me of the John Birch Society, that spread communist conspiracy hysteria from the late 1950s through the 1960s. The undeniable existence of foreign communist leaders and states with bad intentions toward the United States notwithstanding, the John Birchers were all at least a little crazy, and many were totally nuts. There was never a communist plotter hiding behind every bush, nor was the United States ever in serious danger of a communist takeover from within, but enormous damage was done to many good people when the hysteria took control of government and media.

Another danger of pervasive hysteria is that it makes it difficult to see and focus on real warning signs. Your resources, energies, and attention become spread too thin when you become convinced that you have to watch every bush. You begin to miss what would otherwise be noticed.

@July 4th American:

“Calexit” supporters brag that they will have enough signatures to qualify for a ballot measure calling for California’s secession from the United States.

Why don’t they do it like they usually do in California? Have a referendum then, if it fails, just take it to a liberal court and tell they judges what left wing outcome they want… and it shall be done.

@Greg:

Ultimately, Obama’s immigration plan was blocked in the Supreme Court by a tie vote.

Yeah. Because it was un-Constitutional. The President cannot MAKE law, as he did by enacting, by EO, a law that was twice defeated in Congress. However, Trump was FOLLOWING the law… and a liberal court shot it down. Ironic, huh?

However, Trump was FOLLOWING the law… and a liberal court shot it down. Ironic, huh?

The court concluded there was a good argument that the order wasn’t in full compliance with the law, and, far more importantly, also took strong exception to the argument that such Executive Orders were unreviewable by the courts—which could have set a truly frightening precedent concerning Executive powers, had the assertion gone unchallenged. So, they let the stay remain in place, effectively stopping him in his tracks. He can write a different order.

The Trump administration won’t take it to the Supreme Court, despite their threats to do so, because they know damn well the assertion of unreviewable executive powers will blow up in their faces. It would blow up in their faces even if the SCOTUS were strongly conservative-leaning. It’s asking the court to diminish its power as part of our constitutional system of checks and balances. Trump’s lawyers were idiots for suggesting he had such unreviewable powers. They tipped their hand and revealed a dangerous attitude. Now they’ve got both the legitimate media and the courts watching them like hawks. Not to mention half of the nation thinking maybe this guy should be impeached.

The buffoonish court never reviewed the statutory law that has been in place since 1952.

Why is the court suddenly requesting an en banc review?

In an interesting turn of events, it appears that the Russians may have not been behind the hacks into the American political system after all. Meet the three men who are now the center of attention for the hacks: Brothers Abid, Imran, and Jamal Awan.

The Daily Caller News Foundation is reporting that three brothers who managed office IT for government officials have been relieved of their duties on suspicion that they accessed specific computer networks without permission, also known as hacking.

From The Daily Caller:

“Brothers Abid, Imran, and Jamal Awan were barred from computer networks at the House of Representatives Thursday, The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group has learned.”

“Three members of the intelligence panel and five members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs were among the dozens of members who employed the suspects on a shared basis. The two committees deal with many of the nation’s most sensitive issues, information and documents, including those related to the war on terrorism.”

The Daily Caller goes on to state that one of the possible computer systems that may have been hacked in connection to these three brothers belongs to Florida Democrat Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Schultz served as the chairman for the DNC when the now infamous DNC hacks took place during the 2016 presidential campaign. Many Democrats and media outlets reported for months, with little evidence, that the Russians were behind the hacks in a deliberate attempt to help President Trump win the election.

The 9th Circuit Court in it’s current embodiment is a disaster. The latest constitutional crisis is a perfect example. A rouge judge put a stay on the implementation of an emergency executive order without doing any of the necessary legal groundwork, foundations and augment. This was approved by a panel of three judges also without establishing the necessary legal foundations to support the stay. This is more than just angering, it goes against everything the Constitution stands for. The stay effectively takes power away from the Executive branch and gives them to the judicial branch without Constitutional precedence. These incompetent judges through their arrogance has [1] subverted the Constitution, [2] created a Constitutional crisis and has [3] tied the hands of those who are entrusted with defending the United States.

There is a Constitutional solution to this fiasco;

Whereas, the 9th Circuit Court are empowered in their roles as judges for life, and they are obviously incompetent, or criminally negligent as determined by the frequency of overturning of their judgements, and that Congress has the power to control the shape and structure of the Circuit Courts;

1.The territory that falls under the purview of the 9th Circuit Court is to change and from now on be strictly limited to the Aleutian Islands,

2.Three new circuit courts are to be created to cover the former territory that remains after removal from the 9th Circuit Court’s purview, sans the Aleutian Islands.

3.All of the 9th Circuit Judges, shall maintain and keep their lifetime roles as judges in the town of Adak on Adak Island.

4.Renovation of the former military barracks on the island shall be authorized by Congress but shall be in alignment with the quality of the judge’s legal ability.

5.Congress shall appoint new young conservative and libertarian judges with a strong belief in the constitutional principles established by our constitution to the three new circuit courts that are spawned from the realigning of the 9th Circuit Court.

Everything listed above is in complete constitutionality and within the purview of Congress. Implementing this proposal is far less outrageous than some of the rulings that the 9th Circuit has made in the past.

h/t vannrox

The source for this “breaking news” story is Center for Security Policy, an organization of far-right anti-Islamic nut cases. The story is pure propaganda, not news.

It would appear our resident troll is completely wrong again as usual.

Democrats’ Problem With Muslim IT Guys

Four information technology (IT) employees, brothers Abid, Imran and Jamal Awan, and Imran’s wife Hina, were recently fired from their positions working for members of House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The crime: unauthorized access of congressional computers. In other words, they were hacking, and they would likely have had access to sensitive intelligence information. One of the congressional members whose computer they accessed was Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a central figure in the DNC hacking that was allegedly perpetrated by the Russians. Was there any relation between their access and the Russian hacking?

All of them were paid $160,000 per year or more, which is far higher than most IT professionals. Yet the four have a history of suspicious financial schemes, and have massive amounts of debt — a red flag for anyone working with sensitive intelligence information. Abid also had a DUI before his hiring and a public drunkenness charge after it.

But they’re Muslim, which possibly explains their hiring. Don’t underestimate the irony of Democrats being hacked by their own Muslim diversity hires. Stay tuned, because this story could get bigger.

Who is our resident troll, is this person a moslem sympathizer? The troll attacks the veracity of the story by claiming it was concocted by the

Center for Security Policy, an organization of far-right anti-Islamic nut cases

Yet the resident troll provides no supportive basis for sugesting the source of this story is from this organization. Why?

This story happens to be quite factual as sourced on algores amazing internet, pbh, in a number of places. Again, why would the resident troll be so quick to attempt to discredit this factual account of what has actually happened?

a link to the wiki bio perhaps sheds some light….

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Security_Policy

Here is a short listing of what could be characterized as alt-left radical nutcases who amazingly oppose the organization.

Dana Milbank of the Washington Post,[17] Simon Maloy of Salon,[3] CNN national security analyst Peter Bergen,[13] Grover Norquist,[18] Jonathan Kay,[19] Georgetown University’s Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim–Christian Understanding,[20] Center for American Progress,[21] Media Matters for America,[22] the Southern Poverty Law Center,[23] The Intercept,[24] the Anti-Defamation League,[25] and the Institute for Southern Studies,[26] among others.

So, who is our resident troll who calls himself “greg”?

On Trial: Five Signs Even The Ninth Circuit Knows Trump Will Win Travel Ban Fight In End

Tell #1: When The 9th Circuit Cannot Even Cite The Most Important Law On The Subject

The Constitution delegated expressly to Congress the right to control immigration. Congress in turn gave broad power over immigration to the President. This statute was the cited basis for Trump’s foreign entry ban on select countries. Guess how many times the 9th Circuit even mentioned this statute? Zero! This shows the 9th Circuit knew they had no answer for the law. Instead, they pretend this key law doesn’t exist. Just reading the law exposes why the 9th Circuit hid it….

“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.”

Tell #2: When The 9th Circuit Keeps Citing LOSING Opinions As Their Evidence

The second cue was the 9th Circuit’s novel and unsupported extension of standing to states on behalf of people who are neither residents nor citizens of those states, or of any state! The corollary unprecedented act was saying due process rights extend to foreigners in foreign lands. Every major case on this issue, cited in detail by the Boston federal judge, says no such rights exists. Access to America has always been a privilege, not a right. Instead, the 9th Circuit relies on the losing opinions from a range of cases, called “dissents” or minority “concurring” opinions which are NOT precedent. The 9th Circuit cites these losing opinions over and over, a strong tell they know they hold a bad, losing hand on the law.

Tell #3: When No One Will Even Sign The 9th Circuit Opinion Under Their Own Name

No judge would sign this 9th Circuit opinion. Per curiam opinions usually show up in non-controversial cases, not a case like this. When nobody wants to be the author of an opinion like this, it’s a tell that nobody wants to be held responsible for “authoring” this opinion. It really is that bad.

Tell #4: When The 9th Circuit Fails To Even Address Most of the Cases Cited By The Leading Recent Opinion on the Topic

A Boston federal judge detailed the 200+ years of precedent supporting Trump’s order. How does the 9th Circuit address these precedents? Ignore almost all of them. In a trial, when you hide from all the other side’s best evidence, it is a sign you know the other side is right.

Tell #5: When A Fellow 9th Circuit Judge Sua Sponte Says The Decision Needs To Be Undone

En banc review — where all of the judges of a circuit weigh in — is very rare. Even rarer is a judge, sua sponte, on his own, without either side requesting it, demanding such a review. A judge on the 9th Circuit was bothered by the opinion so badly, they demanded the whole en banc panel review. Some judges on the 9th circuit clearly still value being seen as good jurists, not as politicians playing to the peanut gallery.

The 9th Circuit opinion reads like a desparate brief from the losing side of an argument where the writer knows the law is against them. An old trial lawyer’s adage goes, when the facts are on your side, pound the facts; when the law is on your side, pound the law; when neither law nor facts is on your side, pound the table. There was a lot of table pounding by the 9th Circuit, and that may be the biggest tell of all that they know they are wrong on the law, and Trump is right.

VIDEO: Those 3 muslim Brothers Arrested for Spying on Trump Were Hired by Obama… This is Happening!x

VIDEO: Those 3 muslim Brothers Arrested for Spying on Trump Were Hired by Obama… This is Happening!