Justice Elena Kagan (Screen Capture)
Posted on 04/25/2018 3:50:32 PM PDT by jazusamo
(CNSNews.com) - In oral arguments in the case of Trump v. Hawaii today, Justice Elena Kagan suggested as a hypothetical that the United States elects a president “who is a vehement anti-Semite and says all kinds of denigrating comments about Jews,” and that, once in office, this president issues “a proclamation that says no one shall enter from Israel.”
“This is an out-of-the-box kind of President in my hypothetical,” Kagan said in an exchange with Solicitor General Noel Francisco as people in the courtroom laughed, according to the transcript and audio recording of the oral arguments.
“He thinks that there are good diplomatic reasons, and there might--who knows what the future holds, that there might be good diplomatic reasons to put pressure on Israel or to say we want Israel to vote a certain way in the U.N. and this is a way to better our diplomatic hand, and so this is what he does,” said Kagan.
Trump v. Hawaii is a case that challenges the constitutionality of a proclamation President Donald Trump issued last year that bars certain aliens from eight countries from getting visas to enter the country because the governments of these countries do not allows sufficient vetting of the visas.
“The Proclamation explained that, based on the findings of the review process, these countries do not share adequate information with the United States to assess the risks their nationals pose, or they present other heightened risk factors,” Solicitor General Francisco said in the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari presented to the court in January.
In the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Congress gave the president the power to issue a proclamation such as the one Trump issued.
“Whenever the president finds 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 law says, “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 appropriate.”
Here is the transcript of the exchange between Justice Kagan and Solicitor General Francisco on the hypothetical anti-Semitic president:
JUSTICE KAGAN: So let me give you a hypothetical, and it's just--you know, I think that there are ways to distinguish Mandel in this case, but—but--but, you know, just in terms of thinking about what Mandel really forecloses here.
GENERAL FRANCISCO: And I--because Mandel, there are only two cases in the area, and it's--it's hard to understand the full contours of it.
JUSTICE KAGAN: I agree. So this is a hypothetical that you've heard a variant of before that the government has, at any rate, but I want to just give you.
So let's say in some future time a--a president gets elected who is a vehement anti-Semite and says all kinds of denigrating comments about Jews and provokes a lot of resentment and hatred over the course of a campaign and in his presidency and, in the course of that, asks his staff or his cabinet members to issue a proc--to issue recommendations so that he can issue a proclamation of this kind, and they dot all the i's and they cross all the t's.
And what emerges--and, again, in the context of this virulent anti-Semitism--what emerges is a proclamation that says no one shall enter from Israel.
GENERAL FRANCISCO: Right.
JUSTICE KAGAN: Do you say Mandel puts an end to judicial review of that set of facts?
GENERAL FRANCISCO: No, Your Honor, I don't say Mandel puts an end to it, but I do say that, in that context, Mandel would be the starting point of the analysis, because it does involve the exclusion of aliens, which is where Mandel applies.
If his cabinet--and this is a very tough hypothetical that we've dealt with throughout--but if his cabinet were to actually come to him and say, Mr. President, there is honestly a national security risk here and you have to act, I think then that the President would be allowed to follow that advice even if in his private heart of hearts he also harbored animus.
JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, the question is--
GENERAL FRANCISCO: I would also suggest, though--if I could finish that, Your Honor--that I think it would be very difficult for that to even satisfy Mandel rational basis scrutiny. I'd need to know what the rational was. Given that Israel happens to be one of the country's closest allies in the war against terrorism, it's not clear to me that you actually could satisfy--
JUSTICE KAGAN: Well--
GENERAL FRANCISCO: --Mandel's rational basis standard on that, unless it truly were based--
JUSTICE KAGAN: Yes.
GENERAL FRANCISCO: --on a cabinet-level recommendation that was about national security.
JUSTICE KAGAN: General, I'm--let's--this is an out-of-the-box kind of President in my hypothetical. And--
(Laughter.)
GENERAL FRANCISCO: We—we--we don't have those, Your Honor.
JUSTICE KAGAN: And--and, you know, he thinks that there are good diplomatic reasons, and there might--who knows what the future holds, that there might be good diplomatic reasons to put pressure on Israel or to say we want Israel to vote a certain way in the U.N. and this is a way to better our diplomatic hand, and so this is what he does.
And--and who knows what his heart of hearts is. I mean, I take that point. But the question is not really what his heart of hearts is. The question is what are reasonable observers to think--
GENERAL FRANCISCO: Right.
JUSTICE KAGAN: --given this context, in which this hypothetical President--
GENERAL FRANCISCO: Sure.
JUSTICE KAGAN: --is making virulent anti-Semitic comments.
GENERAL FRANCISCO: Right. And, Your Honor, it's a tough hypothetical, but it's why I also think that this is a relatively easy case, because we're willing to even assume for the sake of argument that you consider all of the statements.
And we're even willing to assume for the sake of argument, though we think that it's wrong, that you applied some kind of domestic Establishment Clause jurisprudence, because we're quite confident that, given the process and substance that form the basis of this proclamation, no matter what standard you apply, this proclamation is constitutional.
Since we don't have the extreme hypothetical that you're suggesting, Your Honor, we do have a multi-agency worldwide review and a cabinet-level recommendation that applied a neutral baseline. And this wasn't done just by the cabinet secretaries but by the agencies to every country in the world and concluded—“
Well said!
Actually a good question, although it undercuts the entire liberal argument.
The answer is “Yes”.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Pub.L. 82-414, enacted a provision still found in Title 8 of the U.S. Code at Section 1182(f). The provision gives the president authority to “suspend the entry” of any class of foreign nationals when the president deems their entry to be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” No other standard is set forth in the law for the exercise of this power, and it has been exercised in the past by presidential proclamations suspending entry of certain classes of foreign nationals
I don’t have any problems with a question that reverses the emotional aspects of the arguments. But it defeats her point of view.
Well there was the USS Liberty...
So the Obama liberals on the USSC think they should control immigration? Is USSC taking powers and responsibilities of national security?
US history says otherwise.
To my knowledge, the President is not ‘banning’ immigration or visas from any specific country. As part of law he is not ‘banning’, he is ‘suspending’ certain regimes who do not vet their immigrants or visitors to the US according to US standards.
You mean illegally? Seems pretty obvious he can do that.
She was trying to use the logic of Roberts, etc., but is too stupid to accurately apply it.
Trump merely banned people from certain countries for cause; and their religion was not mentioned.
Did dimwit Kagan list the terrorists who’ve conducted attacks upon America thus far? Sounds a bit like she’s anti-Jewish.......
Did dimwit Kagan list the terrorists who’ve conducted attacks upon America thus far? Sounds a bit like she’s anti-Jewish.......
This feigned concern comes from an appointee of Bill Clinton, supporter of the PLO and J Street.
Didn’t Obama do that?
Straw man argument that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Further, I don’t know of any Jews, Israelis or otherwise, who are murdering people and blowing things up.
Further further, the president has plenary powers with respect to immigration.
And ugly.
He’s still dead.
Her hypothetical leaves out that part of the equation.
Oh, you mean like FDR and Japanese internment and the Germans during WWII?
I think the obvious counterpoint is that it’s a political question and unsuitable for the courts to be involved if it doesn’t involve U.S citizens.
Then ask yourself How many Federal judges, or SCOTUS for that matter are equipped to put forth it’s own immigration policy.
I saw that earlier, Justice Alito is dead on the mark.
She was actually appointed by Zero but I agree with your point.
The muzzies can all move in with her.
“Justice Kagan: What If a President Issues a ‘Proclamation That Says No One Shall Enter From Israel?’”
That’s the reason we have elections you dumb ugly stunt. No one has a right to come to America. We don’t have to accept any immigrants or if we do, we can choose which countries they come from.
You pieces of living sh!t in black robes certainly don’t have a say in the matter.
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.