Posted on 06/05/2017 7:46:11 AM PDT by GIdget2004
President Trump’s call for a tougher version of his travel ban could undermine his administration’s effort to reinstate the controversial policy, legal experts say.
In a string of Monday morning tweets, Trump called on the Justice Department to “seek an expedited hearing of the watered down Travel Ban before the Supreme Court” while working on a “much tougher version in the meantime.”
“The Justice Dept. should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to S.C.,” the president wrote on Twitter.
But it was Trump himself who in March approved a revised version of the policy, which dropped Iraq from a list of Muslim-majority countries whose citizens would be temporarily barred from entering the U.S. The revised policy also eased restrictions on some refugees.
"It doesn't make any sense. He's attacking the Justice Department for something he did,” said Matthew Miller, a Justice Department spokesperson during the Obama administration.
Trump has likely made it more difficult for Justice lawyers responsible for shepherding the policy through the courts to defend against several of the key legal attacks on the order.
He ignored the legal problems that arise from the term “travel ban,” using it four times on Twitter in the past 24 hours.
“People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!” Trump tweeted.
During court arguments, U.S. government lawyers have gone out of their way to not use the term “travel ban,” instead calling it a “temporary pause” — the same phrase used by Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
The author refers to “Trump”, but his
is President Trump.
American TRAITORS Fabian and Williams
should go back to al Qaeda.
I doubt it. The SC either gives Trump back his right to protect the nation or they take responsibility for the defense of our nation. Tweets have nothing to do with it other than to remind the Supremes that people are trying to kill us and the courts are second guessing our efforts to stop it.
No, not undercut. He’s arguing to larger audience and putting court on notice that the executive has a unique responsibility and it is not theirs to meddle. Wish he’d go a step further and explicitly state that if anyone over the past months kills an American then it is blood on the court’s hands because they stopped him from exercising his constitutional and legal authority. This is the case he is making to the American people and the court is smart enough to realize they don’t want to be holding the blame if someone comes in and kills an American. Comes in because of their court decision.
But “the Police acted stupidly” was sacred text from the leftists’ god.
Cue the concern troll media.
Facts, legal arguments, and the constitution are set aside in favor of campaign rhetoric that liberals don't like. Cool, we really are in a new age.
American traitors should be tried, convicted, and publicly hanged. And let their carcasses rot off the noose.
Trump needs to drag these people through the mud, publicly. When a terrorist attack does occur here, and the way we’re going, it will, he needs to publicly blame the black robed tyrants. The public needs to hear that it’s their fault their friends, family, and neighbors are dead at the hands of savages.
Trump shouldn’t have submitted the watered down version of the ban, but I liked his tweets.
In then meantime, if we suffer a terrorist attack that this “moratorium” would have prevented, every judge who has ruled against it should face trial by military tribunal for treason, be convicted, and summarily executed.
Everybody agrees on the facts in this case, so we are dealing with a question of pure law.
And the new age is the new age of federal jurisprudence. The case has been heard, decided, and appealed. The vast majority of judges have concluded that campaign rhetoric carries more weight than the text of an EO.
Funny thing is, this is nothing new for federal courts. They hallucinate things into the constitution too. The federal court system is an utterly failed institution. So is Congress, for allowing this sort of nonsense to persist across generations.
Obviously, the courts don't care if they are held up to ridicule. They get the last word, and aren't challenged on it in any meaningful way.
Looks like we can abandon 1000+ page legislation and get rid of lawyers to write lengthy policy documents that agree with the Constitution. Just let lawmakers tweet and have the courts rule on tweets.
I’m all for greatly reducing the pages in legislation and policy but I’m not sure we want regulations of 142 characters or less. It may be best to keep some of the lawyers and have them write slightly longer regulations so that government employees can implement them in accordance with the Constitution.
But, if the legal documents don’t matter, we should definitely get rid of the lawyers who write them. Tweets are much closer to the idea of some of the founding fathers’ that laws should be understood by the common man.
No, that Trump tweet is irrelevant to the issue. Either the President gets to conduct foreign policy, of which immigration is a component, or he doesn’t. The President gets to express his opinion about terrorism, and his opinion does not somehow magically abrogate his authority as duly elected President.
Do paraphrase a comedian from decades ago: Do you mind if we borrow your constitution? You don’t seem to be using it.
The principal argument in this whole matter is that the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
If the Supreme Court judges law through tweets then the country is farther gone than we had thought
Shove it, The Hill. And your stupid Obama spokeschild too. Trump can say what he wants. Nothing he says will meet your approval.
What do the President’s Tweets have to do with the Law?
Buzzie Ginsburg disparaged President Trump before and after he was Elected.
Why is she even allowed to judge this Case since the Lower Courts used Candidate Trump’s comments to make up their Lawless Rulings against him?
So, let me get this straight - someone’s tweets about a law can get a law thrown out.
Can we use this methodology to get rid of commie care?
Just have someone in office tweet out something like, “yup, it’s not a tax, we just felt it was time to stick it to white people. We wanted to screw those Catholics too.”
Job done.
Really surprised to see what Kellyanne Conway’s husband has tweeted about this:
“These tweets may make some ppl feel better, but they certainly won’t help OSG get 5 votes in SCOTUS, which is what actually matters. Sad.”
https://mobile.twitter.com/gtconway3d/status/871746245630590980
Not sure he should be out there criticizing President Trump for saying what needed to be said. The President gets to decide what matters, not you George.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.