I hope Justices John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy consider what will happen when they rule in the administration’s favor — only to see Trump gloat over his “Muslim ban” in a tweet the morning after the ruling.
Your Travel Ban Isn’t Safe Yet, Mr. Trump
Read carefully, the opinion makes it clear that most of the Supreme Court justices think Mr. Trump’s executive order, which restricts travel from six Muslim-majority countries, is likely to be struck down if the court hears the case in the fall, as scheduled.
.. The court made it clear that the Fourth and Ninth Circuits were correct to suspend the ban for those nationals who have “bona fide” relationships here in the country. That is a long list: families, university students and professors, business owners and partners.
.. Rudy Giuliani told us on national television early in Mr. Trump’s term that the president wanted to enact a Muslim ban and that he had asked him to “make it legal.” While Mr. Trump’s lawyers tried to argue the contrary, Mr. Trump continued to admit in public that he preferred the first “politically incorrect” version of the ban, a reference to limits on Muslim immigration.
.. It’s possible that the court will never make a final ruling on the legality of the travel ban because Mr. Trump might allow the policy to expire. The justices might want to avoid stating the obvious: The president of the United States signed an executive order based on unconscionable prejudice against Muslims. Courts generally like to avoid such direction confrontation between the branches when possible. But for those who look carefully, it is clear that the justices have already rebuked him by keeping the injunction on his ban in place for a significant segment of those who would have been affected by it.
.. Mr. Trump can tweet about his victory all he wants. The truth is that the Supreme Court has kept part of the injunctions against the travel ban in place, suggesting that it was likely that the president of the United States enacted an illegal policy as his signature initiative. We have a Constitution that prohibits policy based on prejudice. And we have a president who, in his indifference to the Constitution and the rights it protects, signed an executive order that violates that basic value.
Donald Trump Wrote a Cookbook
The emissary leaves behind a book in the Kanamit language. A team of analysts translates the title as “To Serve Man,”
‘To Serve Man,’ it’s… it’s a cookbook!”
.. For those who serve the president: The price of your diligence is his flippancy. The price of your efforts to protect him is his willingness to expose you. The price of your sacrifice — of time, profit, career and, in the long run, reputation — is his indifference. The price of your loyalty is his contempt.
.. For those who think the president’s character flaws can be softened, or overcome, by the caliber of his advisers: You can’t use water to put out a grease fire.
.. The president’s digital compulsions may be less obscene than Anthony Weiner’s, but they’re more consequential.
.. Twitter is the electric current that connects populist to populus, demagogue to mob
.. What’s a loss at the high court when he knows he can use it to capitalize politically from the next terrorist attack in the U.S.?
.. we may learn from James Comey’s Senate testimony whether Trump will have to pay a political price of his own for demanding personal loyalty oaths from nonpolitical appointees. If so, it would be fitting punishment for a man who so far has only known profit and advantage from his lack of loyalty toward those who serve him.
Should the President’s Words Matter in Court?
reliance on Donald Trump’s own words as candidate, president-elect and president. The court leaned particularly heavily on his now-famous campaign statement that he was “calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”
The government’s lawyers argued that those words had no bearing on the order’s lawfulness, but the court disagreed. The president’s words, the court found, led to only one conclusion: The order was driven by “religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination,” not a genuine national-security need
.. But there is an exception to this rule: namely, when presidential speech supplies evidence of intent or purpose of established legal relevance — for example, when assessing a claim of religious discrimination
.. The Supreme Court, for example, acted properly in disregarding President Barack Obama’s statement that the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate was “absolutely not a tax increase.”