General Question

flo's avatar

What's the most upto date info re. Trump's ban on the 7 mostly Muslim countries?

Asked by flo (11237points) February 6th, 2017

Where is the most upto date info regarding the ban? Isn’t there something new, as in a few hours ago? Is this the latest?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

34 Answers

SergeantQueen's avatar

The only info that is recent (BBC and CNN posted articles within the last hour) are “How Trump’s ‘Muslim ban’ comments can hurt his travel ban case” (CNN) and “U.S defends ‘lawful’ Trump travel ban” (BBC)

Edit- Court appeals are set for Tuesday. (The Hill posted that news an hour ago)

flo's avatar

Good. I thought I heard the ban is reinstated.
By the way did the appeal court ask the two sides to clarify their positions yesterday? What did it need to be more clear about?

zenvelo's avatar

A federal appeals court will hear oral arguments Tuesday on the Justice Department’s request to overturn a broad block on President Donald Trump’s travel ban executive order.

The San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals announced that a three-judge panel will hold an hour-long telephone argument session starting at 6 p.m. ET (3 p.m. PT.) Tuesday.

The arguments were scheduled just as the Trump administration filed a new brief arguing that national security concerns make it improper for the courts to intrude on executive branch decisions about which foreigners should be denied entry to the U.S.

rojo's avatar

National Security Concerns my ass. It is yet another attempt to rule by instilling fear in the populace. We have not had a single case of a terrorist attack from any of the countries he has singled out just as we have not had a single case of a terrorist braving the Chihuahuan or Mojave desert to gain access to the US. And the fact that most of the people in the US illegally came into the US by legal means and then overstayed their visa does not seem to make a difference as to whether or not a wall is justifiable.

@zenvelo it appears they are about to try to circumvent the checks and balances laid out in the constitution? Hopefully the Courts will rip him, and his lawyers, a new one.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Yeah. All I know is that it’s going to be tough for the ban to make it through litigation. It seems like most of Trump’s agendas. Unenforceable, illegal, and stupid.

Jaxk's avatar

It’s interesting to note that the Immigration and Nationality Act, passed in 1952 states in section 212(f): “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.”

Sounds pretty clear. Unfortunately the ninth circuit is the most liberal court in the nation. Naturally they are also the most frequently over turned court. If they follow the law, this executive order, should be reinstated. Whether they follow the law of courser is anybodies guess.

zenvelo's avatar

@Jaxk The authority under that act is not in dispute. What is in dispute is that the order is capricious and announced as to be applied on unconstitutional grounds. The Executive has not been able to demonstrate any finding that the class of aliens being barred are detrimental to the interests of the United States,

And while the Ninth Circuit may be “liberal” in its application of the law, the specific judges in this case are not some notorious liberal justices. But Executive Orders are subject to judicial review, and a stay on imposition of ban is the prudent course of action until a hearing on the merits of the Executive Order.

Dutchess_III's avatar

” is in dispute is that the order is capricious and announced as to be applied on unconstitutional grounds. The Executive has not been able to demonstrate any finding that the class of aliens being barred are detrimental to the interests of the United States,” Perfectly said @zenvelo.

All Mexican drug dealers are a threat. Not all Mexicans are drug dealers. You can’t just scoop an entire demographics and throw them in the trash.

flo's avatar

@Jaxk What does the law say about a president insulting the judges/the judiciary/the courts? Is calling a judge , “so called judge”, the court disgraceful, “ridiculous” dictatorship or something like dictatorship, or something else?

Jaxk's avatar

^^^ It says the same as it did when Obama criticized the supreme court during his State of the Union address with the judges sitting right in front of him. Not the best approach in either case but nothing illegal or even immoral about it. I thought you guys were the champions of critical speech. Maybe not.

rojo's avatar


What Obama said: “Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign companies—to spend without limit in our elections. Well, I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.”

What Trump said: “The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned! Italics mine

Do you honestly not see the difference?

Obama calls on lawmakers to pass a law to correct what he sees as an injustice on a case that did not directly involve an action he was personally involved in.

Trump insults and questions the integrity of a Judge who was directly involved in an action that Trump initiated. It is indicative of a serious personality defect that also led him to declare that Judge Curiel, an American of Hispanic heritage could not make a impartial legal judgement on a case involving Trump and saying that he (Curiel) was a “hater” and alluding to the judge’s Mexican heritage as a conflict of interest for the cases.

Are the two examples really that similar in your eyes?

Dutchess_III's avatar

Excellent point @rojo. The differences between Obama a Trump are infinitesimal. Can you imagine Obama going to the public and whining that Nordstroms isn’t carrying the kinds of clothes Malia likes, as if that’s the most important news in the nation? Here’s a post I created today:

Trump’s own supreme court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, said to Richard Blumenthal, in a private meeting, that that Trump’s attack on our judiciary system is “disheartening.” Blumenthal tattled.

Ergo, the three most important, pressing issues on Trump’s plate today are:

1) Gorsuch is being so mean to him.

2) Richard Blumenthal is a big fat liar. So is Gorsuch.

3) Nordstrom’s is being so mean to his daughter, Tiffany. Or Ivanka. Melania. Whatever. He gets them confused too.

Time to fly Air Force One out to Palm Beach again. The pressure is just SO BAD. You have no idea. However, we need to cut him a little slack. I bet your four year old couldn’t handle it either.


Can you even begin to imagine Obama acting like a petulant child all the time??

zenvelo's avatar

@Dutchess_III “The differences between Obama a Trump are infinitesimal.”

I disagree with that comparison. The difference is vast, not tiny.

Jaxk's avatar

@rojo – Actually, the two example are the same to me. It is either wrong to berate the judges or it’s not. Your political ideology is not the deciding factor. Just because you agree in one case and disagree in another doesn’t make it right or wrong. They’re either wrong in both cases or they’re right. Anything else is simply hypocritical.

rojo's avatar

@Jaxk I see your point but not as it relates to the two examples. Obama disagreed with the judicial response and called for laws that would clarify the subject in question but he did not berate the judges, impugn their integrity or question their qualifications to be judges as Trump did. Disagree with a judges conclusion vs insult and belittle the judge. I don’t see where my personal agreement or disagreement with the decisions comes into play in this.

I am sorry, I am not questioning your opinion, just seriously having a hard time understanding how you can see them as the same.

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

The US already has one of the most thorough vetting processes in the world. Anything you may have heard to the contrary is pure, rightwing bullshit. Make up your own mind on Trump’s true motives after reviewing this short video on the American vetting process.

Jaxk's avatar

@rojo – Personally I find both cases offensive. But here’s the rub. The Ninth Circuit has been overturned 80% of the time in the last few years. 80% of the time their reading of the law and the constitution was wrong. Hell, you should get to 50% by not listening or reading anything and just guessing. If you are wrong 80% of the time, you’re doing something wrong and that indicates a much deeper problem. Whether you applaud the decision or not the indication is that the courts are out of control and trying to substitute their judgement on what is right or wrong instead of following the law. In this case the law could not be clearer. A visceral reaction like Trumps can’t be applauded but it is certainly understandable given the situation. Obama’s reaction while better stated was no less objectionable.

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

A visceral reaction like Trumps can’t be applauded but it is certainly understandable given the situation

@Jaxk What situation, exactly? Please give links that describe specific weaknesses in our present vetting process.

rojo's avatar

@Jaxk I think you may have been confused by some of the information, or rather, misinformation, out there. The number you have found refers to an ABA study which showed that in the time period (1999–2008), 114,199 cases were decided by the 9th circuit and 107 were reversed 33 vacated and 35 affirmed by the Supreme Court.

The 80% reversal rate does not mean that 80% of all the 9th circuit’s decisions are reversed.

Only in about 1% of decisions is a review by the Supreme Court requested by one of the parties, and of that only a small fraction are heard by the Supreme Court.

So, in actuality, The 9th circuit has been overturned in 0.12% of cases. It has been affirmed in 0.03% of cases. The remaining 99.85% of cases the court’s findings were left untouched and therefore tacitly approved.

The fact is that the Ninth Circuit has been overruled in a little over one tenth of one percent of all the decisions it has rendered and that is a far cry from the 80% being bandied about since their latest decision.

Jaxk's avatar

@Espiritus_Corvus – That’s not the issue. You can disagree with his EO but the courts are supposed to look at the law not whether they agree or disagree with it. It is clear that he has the authority based on his judgement. All the rest of the arguments are simply a side show not grounded in law. You may think the order is bad decision but the law gives the President the call on this. I’m not privy to the same information as the President so anything I would come up with is wild speculation. Same as you.

rojo's avatar

One final point, when you dig deep enough into something, like this, you find that you have been mislead. If, as you say, they are the most liberal leaning circuit, a 99.88% success rate hardly imply that “the courts are out of control”; more like more fear mongering and outright deception have colored some folks judgement.

Ok, sorry, two final points: NOTHING justifies Trumps reaction, visceral or not.

I, we, you should expect and demand more from someone who ostensibly represents us. I would expect such from a drunkard or sleazy salesman hawking cheap, imitation designer clothing and the like but not from the “Leader of the Free World”. Sorry.

Jaxk's avatar

@rojo – I have to give you that one. I did misstate the numbers, it is only those cases that were appealed. That was clear in the article, I simply missed it, probably because I’m a drunken, sleazy sleazy, salesman (actually that’s not true, I’m not a salesman). Nonetheless, an 80% reversal rate on appeals is disturbing. And I still contend that Obama’s speech dressing down the Supreme Court was no less cheap and tawdry.

flo's avatar

@Jaxk RE. _“A visceral reaction like Trumps can’t be applauded but it is certainly understandable given the situation.” _ Of course it’s understandable to those who would imagine voting/who voted for Trump, so, that’s saying nothing. And the proof of that is, what do you consider not understandable when it comes to what Trump has said or done?

By the way he only got elected because:, to mention one thing.
not because he actually won the election.

flo's avatar

@zenvelo I think it was just an error on @Dutchess_III post. English vocabulary grammar etc., not her weakness. I’m sure she didn’t mean to use the word infintesimal. I’m guessing she may have been thinking infinatley…

Jaxk's avatar

@flo – Good article and I believe has some merit. They massively over simplify the their point though. Look at what is happening here on this thread. Trump called the Washington Judge a “So called Judge”. In the world of insults this is hardly even worth mentioning but the press and the liberals act like this is the worst insult ever constructed. That the mere utterance of such an insult will shake the foundation of our democracy and destroy the separation of power. Give me a break! While most of America is looking at this EO and thinking ‘Sounds reasonable’, the press and liberals are shutting down the airports, screaming like banshees, and predicting the end of the country. In fact the same reaction comes from every thing Trump says and does, no matter how reasonable or trivial it is.

Yes the anti-Trump press helped Trump rather than hurt him but it was the massive over-reaction that made it obvious that the press was biased. It’s still obvious, it’s still over-reacting, and it’s still hysterical. Call Trump a buffoon, a racist, a nazi and that’s OK. But if he utters the slightest defense, it’s the end of the world. A little perspective would help your cause but keep screaming if you think that will work.

flo's avatar

@Jaxk Americans in general are not are not like Trump, so it makes no sense that he “won” the election. Most of supporters sound like they have

rojo's avatar

@flo Not sure but I think I that there are a LOT of Americans who are just like Trump. Or, Trumpish enough to fuck the rest of us.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Yup. Weather they are I’ll informed, naive,racist, sexist, xenophobic or whatever, there are many who support the lunatic….

flo's avatar

@rojo and @MrGrimm888 Some kind of abberation led to Trump being elected.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^It’s no “aberration” that led to his election. I’d prefer “perfect storm.”

flo's avatar

You used the word lunatic, so you see it as a very bad thing. Aberration is related to bad events, results etc.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Those two specific words would hold different meanings in different context.

Neither would hopefully be discussed in regards to the POTUS though . But here we are….

rojo's avatar

Is aberration another word for vote manipulation?

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther