Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Travel ban ruling: In court as on Twitter, Trump confronts evidence gap
Travel ban ruling: In court as on Twitter, Trump confronts evidence gap
By Derek Hawkins and Fred Barbash
February 10 at 6:47 AM
The list of evidence-free claims from President Trump and his administration is long and growing. “Millions” of people voted illegally. Inauguration turnout was the “biggest ever.” All negative polls are “fake news.” ... No matter how hard the administration is pressured to support its assertions, no matter how many “four-Pinocchio” and “pants on fire” ratings follow, Trump doesn’t relent. It’s hard to imagine he feels the need to, especially when polls such as one this week out of Emerson College show registered voters find his administration more truthful than its interlocutors in the news media.
{snip tweet}
Trump’s defiance might work well as political theater, and there’s no denying that it made for an effective presidential campaign. But as a legal strategy, it’s already hitting roadblocks. ... The first came last week, when a federal judge froze his controversial executive order shutting U.S. borders to refugees and migrants from seven mostly Muslim countries. ... But the real blow came Thursday, when an appeals court upheld that freeze. In a unanimous opinion, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit found that the government had failed to show why the travel ban needed to be immediately reinstated, as The Washington Post’s Matt Zapotosky reported.
....
In short, the court found the administration essentially unbelievable, as have many of Trump’s critics. ... Though the court’s ruling represents a significant setback for the administration, some legal observers cautioned about reading too much into it. The court has yet to rule on the merits of the case, including whether the order discriminates against Muslims specifically, as the plaintiffs — the states of Washington and Minnesota — argue.
“Are there tea leaves to read in this opinion? There sure are, particularly with respect to the judges’ analysis of the government’s likelihood of prevailing on the merits and its blithe dismissal of the government’s claims of national security necessity,” wrote Benjamin Wittes, editor in chief of Lawfare. ... “But it’s worth emphasizing that the grounds on which this order was fought are not the grounds on which the merits fight will happen,” Wittes wrote. “Eventually, the court has to confront the clash between a broad delegation of power to the President — a delegation which gives him a lot of authority to do a lot of not-nice stuff to refugees and visa holders — in a context in which judges normally defer to the president, and the incompetent malevolence with which this order was promulgated.”
....
Fred Barbash, the editor of Morning Mix, is a former National Editor and London Bureau Chief for the Washington Post. Follow @fbarbash
By Derek Hawkins and Fred Barbash
February 10 at 6:47 AM
The list of evidence-free claims from President Trump and his administration is long and growing. “Millions” of people voted illegally. Inauguration turnout was the “biggest ever.” All negative polls are “fake news.” ... No matter how hard the administration is pressured to support its assertions, no matter how many “four-Pinocchio” and “pants on fire” ratings follow, Trump doesn’t relent. It’s hard to imagine he feels the need to, especially when polls such as one this week out of Emerson College show registered voters find his administration more truthful than its interlocutors in the news media.
{snip tweet}
Trump’s defiance might work well as political theater, and there’s no denying that it made for an effective presidential campaign. But as a legal strategy, it’s already hitting roadblocks. ... The first came last week, when a federal judge froze his controversial executive order shutting U.S. borders to refugees and migrants from seven mostly Muslim countries. ... But the real blow came Thursday, when an appeals court upheld that freeze. In a unanimous opinion, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit found that the government had failed to show why the travel ban needed to be immediately reinstated, as The Washington Post’s Matt Zapotosky reported.
....
In short, the court found the administration essentially unbelievable, as have many of Trump’s critics. ... Though the court’s ruling represents a significant setback for the administration, some legal observers cautioned about reading too much into it. The court has yet to rule on the merits of the case, including whether the order discriminates against Muslims specifically, as the plaintiffs — the states of Washington and Minnesota — argue.
“Are there tea leaves to read in this opinion? There sure are, particularly with respect to the judges’ analysis of the government’s likelihood of prevailing on the merits and its blithe dismissal of the government’s claims of national security necessity,” wrote Benjamin Wittes, editor in chief of Lawfare. ... “But it’s worth emphasizing that the grounds on which this order was fought are not the grounds on which the merits fight will happen,” Wittes wrote. “Eventually, the court has to confront the clash between a broad delegation of power to the President — a delegation which gives him a lot of authority to do a lot of not-nice stuff to refugees and visa holders — in a context in which judges normally defer to the president, and the incompetent malevolence with which this order was promulgated.”
....
Fred Barbash, the editor of Morning Mix, is a former National Editor and London Bureau Chief for the Washington Post. Follow @fbarbash
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
