قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / US / In the travel ban test, the Supreme Court can not uphold Trump's words against him

In the travel ban test, the Supreme Court can not uphold Trump's words against him



Now, the Supreme Court seems willing to join forces with the government and accepts its arguments that the new ban on national security and the legitimate exercise of executive power is essential.

Yet, judges left no doubt during a 67-minute break. They hear on Wednesday that they know Trump's comments against Muslims from the 2016 presidential campaign. His election promises include, as noted on his website: "A total and complete closure of Muslims who come to the United States, until the representatives of our country can find out what is going on."

Trump commented after his election similarly, if not as robust, sentiment and condemned judges, who decided against the travel ban, belittle them in the social media and question their legitimacy. He referred to the Judge of the US District Court James Robart from the State of Washington as a "so-called judge" and considered Robart's order of February 201

7, the travel ban temporarily "ridiculous" block. Trump also said, "if anything happens, blame him and the court system."

The devastating back and forth that characterized the earlier litigation was far from the Supreme Court's ruling on Wednesday. A majority of judges suggested by their questions that their legal calculation for the revised proclamation (Trump's thirds) could go beyond his rhetoric.

  Key moments from the Supreme Court's travel ban hearing

As much as the judges referred to hypothetical cases with fictitious out-of-control candidates, or, as did the Justice Elena Kagan The judges had also thought ahead of the president and the power of the office, "an unconventional kind of president".

Chief Justice John Roberts, who was most open to Trump's case, doubtfully asked whether election campaign statements could be "for the rest of the administration," or indeed "a statute of limitations."

Roberts & # 39; s questions generally lit national security concerns. When attorney Neal Katyal, who represented the state of Hawaii and other challengers, got up at the lectern, Roberts asked immediately if a president could be prevented from acting on an intelligence basis by allowing Syrian nationals to enter the United States with chemical and biological weapons wanted "class =" media__image "src =" http://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/180125153545-20180125-justice-system-abuse-illustration-filled-in-large-169.jpg "/>

Katyal, who argued that Trump claimed the boundless authority to exclude anyone he wanted, tried to dismiss Robert's hypothesis and eventually speak a president could act "to keep the country safe. "But Robert's national security concerns regarding visa-seeking aliens were apparent.

Even Kagan stating the most provocative hypothetical question about a vengeful anti-Semitic president All who are exiled from Israel, observed to Katyal, that the proclamation "there are important national security interests at stake. "

" And, "Kagan went on," the question is how to do the kind of analysis we should refrain from assessing the adequacy of these national security interests. Most of the time we said that courts do not are equipped. "

Predictions based on verbal arguments can be dangerous – the judges are likely to attend a scheduled Friday meeting that is private and the decision is not expected for about two months.

During this time, much may be behind But the question and answer on Wednesday suggested that the majority of the Supreme Court would bring Trump to victory, with the court having previously signaled some approval when the judges annulled the travel ban in December with a 7-2 vote in Only judges Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor disagreed.

On Wednesday, Judge Anthony Kennedy, who stood at the center of this ideologically divided bank and whose voice could change the case, pleaded with Katyal and Attorney General Noel Francisco Question: Trump's proclamation now focused on Islamic countries in Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen as well as North Korea and Venezuela.

However, Kennedy did not dare to oppose the Order and seemed most concerned that if individual immigrants could demonstrate religious discrimination, one way was clear for them to obtain an exception to order.

He introduced this question by adapting Kagan's query. "Suppose," said Kennedy, "you have a local mayor and as a candidate he makes hateful claims, and he is elected and on the second day he makes acts that match those hateful statements said in the campaign is irrelevant?" [19659012] "I would say yes," Francisco replied, "because we think that the oath marks a fundamental transformation."

He added, "This is not a so-called Muslim ban if it is it would be, it would be, the most ineffective Muslim prohibition imaginable, since it excludes not only the vast majority of the Muslim world, but also three Muslim-majority countries covered by previous orders, including Iraq, Chad, and Sudan.

Kennedy went on to ask, "If you have this extreme hypothesis, this would constitute a free exercise or a clause of con fi rmation" under the religious protection of the First Additional Mates. [19659002] "It could definitely pose a challenge to the free practice clause," Fracisco responded.

Kennedy observed that Trump would have to review the order every 180 days, providing protection against abuse.

Katyal tried to emphasize that Trump's unilateral attempt to restrict members of Muslim majority countries had usurped Congressional violence over immigration, in violation of the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act

"I just want to see the consequences of the immigration The position of the Trump administration for the INA make clear, "said Katyal the president can bring a wrecking ball to the statute. "


Source link