Trump is 'conceding defeat' in travel ban

Mellon_Collie · #1 (**permalink**) 02-17-2017, 02:59 AM

There is a video o the page of the Interview...

Quote:

Washington Attorney General says Trump is 'conceding defeat' in travel ban fight

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson is claiming legal victory in his fight against President Donald Trump’s immigration executive order.

The Justice Department said in court filings on Thursday that Trump will replace the current executive order and that they will not continue litigating the challenge brought by Washington state.

Ferguson spearheaded that case against the Trump administration. KGW’s Laural Porter spoke with him on Thursday afternoon from Seattle.

Laural Porter: You brought the initial case against the president’s travel ban. Is this a victory for you or does the fight go on?

Attorney General Bob Ferguson: This is unequivocally a victory. The president is essentially conceding defeat and acknowledging what everyone can see, that the executive order, the original executive order is unconstitutional and unlawful. He’s chosen not to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court and in their briefing earlier the Department of Justice said they’ll rescind the original executive order and frankly start all over.

Porter: The president has said by tailoring the new executive order they can get just about everything they want, in some ways more. What do you expect in this new executive order?

Ferguson: The president has to be candid. He's been wrong about everything so far with this executive order. So I’m not sure I’d put too much into his most recent statements. What I’ll be looking for in a new executive order is exactly what we looked at in the original executive order: anything the president does with an executive order related to immigration must still be constitutional and lawful. Frankly, the original executive order failed on both counts. So what we’ll be looking for is to make sure whatever he puts forward meets those tests. We’ll scrutinize it carefully. We’ll examine every word in every statement to determine what our next steps might be.

Porter: If the White House exempts legal permanent residents and people returning on a visa in this new executive order, would that be sufficient for you?

Ferguson: Well that would certainly be a good start. There are approximately 500,000 people in the United States who have green cards, lawful permanent residents, from the seven affected countries listed in the original executive order. So yes that would be a good starting point.

That said, I’m going to wait and not pre-judge whatever new executive order the president might put together. My hope is he will frankly take more time, consult with his lawyers, consult with key departments and agencies to make sure more thought is put into a revised executive order than was placed in the original one.

Porter: Yesterday, Texas became the first state to support the Trump administration in the legal battle on this saying the president should be able to make national security decisions. And there’s a federal law that gives the president the authority and discretion to bar entry to the US from any class of immigrants if he deems them to be detrimental to the United States. Doesn’t that put the president in a strong position?

Ferguson: Yes, Texas did file in support of the president. They’re a bit lonely at this point. My understanding is no other state has joined them. But more importantly and more substantively, the president has broad authority when it comes to issuing executive orders, when it comes to immigration. However, those powers are not without limit.

You don’t have to take my word for it. President Obama issued an executive order a couple of years ago related to immigration. An attorney general in Texas filed a lawsuit against that order, a federal trial court judge said it was unlawful, that was upheld in the court of appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court split 4-4, which meant that the executive order was still unlawful.

We’ve seen this before, but the president’s powers are not unchecked. What I find deeply troubling about the president’s argument is in this case the DOJ has literally argued in court that the president’s actions are unreviewable. Those are their own words: that the president’s actions are unreviewable. And as my own solicitor general Noah Purcell said at oral argument in response, he said that is truly terrifying. That has never been the law in our country and frankly that cannot be the law. Nobody in our country is above the law and is above the Constitution. That includes the President of the United States and it’s my responsibility to make sure the president upholds that Constitution.

Porter: Before today's decision, you had talked about moving immediately to discovery, exploring a motive behind the travel ban. Why was that important to this case?

Ferguson: It’s critically important because one of our claims is the president acted in a way that put one religion above another. Specifically, he wanted a Muslim ban. He made that very clear throughout his campaign. Rudy Giuliani just a few weeks ago went on national TV and said the president asked him to put together a Muslim ban, but just do it in a lawful way.

Part of our argument was this was done in an unconstitutional way violating the establishment of religion clause. In order to determine that, an individual party is allowed to go behind the action to find out what truly motivated the action. That’s pretty standard in terms of courtrooms. It’s magnified in a case like this obviously because we’re talking about the president and his closest advisors.

Porter: The president has denied that a Muslim ban was behind this travel ban. Is there legal precedent for going back to what he said during the campaign?

Ferguson: One has the ability to look at statements, emails, documentation related to the thinking that goes into any action. In this case we’re talking about an executive order. The fact they are statements from a campaign might be a little unusual, but there’s nothing remarkable about the proposition from a legal standpoint.

Porter: Would it have been possible or possible in the future to depose the President of the United States?

Ferguson: I’m sure the president and his lawyers would assert different privileges if we made such a request. The key aspect from my standpoint would be ensure that we get to the bottom of what motivated this executive order. We’ll make a determination later as I talk to my team about what depositions are appropriate as we move forward.

Porter: There are Washingtonians and Oregonians who support President Trump, they support this travel ban and they wonder why you’re taking on the administration on this. Shouldn’t you be focusing on state issues? Is it your role to be taking on the President of the United States?

Ferguson: It’s my role to uphold the Constitution. If the president does not uphold the Constitution, it’s my job to hold him accountable for that. Of course I recognize many people support the president, many people support this executive order. But I would hope as a people we’d all agree nothing is more important that the rule of law.

We’re a nation of laws and nobody is above the law. So it’s my responsibility to make sure the president upholds the Constitution, and when he uses that significant power that can have significant impact on people’s lives in deeply personal ways, that he does that in a way that’s constitutional. So far he is suffering defeat after defeat after defeat in the courts for a very simple reason: he’s violating the Constitution and I will not put up with that.

Porter: The president called a federal judge who ruled against him a “so-called judge.” He also called the Ninth Circuit decision disgraceful and today he called the decision a “very bad decision.” What are your thoughts about his hostility towards the courts?

Ferguson: It’s obviously deeply disappointing. But as an attorney you know that when the person on the other side of the case resorts to name calling that you’re winning. He does not have a legal argument to sustain his executive order and that’s why he’s lashing out in the way that he is. It’s unfortunate, but four judges so far have weighed in on this case. Two have been appointment by Republicans – George W. Bush – two by Democrats. It’s a shame, but frankly I’m just focused on our case.

(© 2017 KGW)

winston53660 · #2 (**permalink**) 02-17-2017, 04:09 AM

And the House of Cards FAILS

300 H and H · #3 (**permalink**) 02-17-2017, 06:22 AM

Why do you lefties want Muslims here in the first place?

When is enough, enough?

Why do you want illegals to be legal? Why do you want all who want to come here allowed to do so?

Do you know and understand the history of emigration to this country?

Do you realize that in the past we have closed our borders for decades to new emigration?

So your proud we are polluting our population with people who will never assimilate?

Are you aware we have Muslim's here training to violently over throw our nation?

Are you just useful idiots for the Muslims who wish to defeat America with out firing a shot?

I don't get what is in your heads at all when it comes to letting people in our country who do not belong here. I think it is all about the votes you think you will gain. For me this is not a valid reason. In fact it is reason enough to hate the left.

Regards, Kirk

FrancSevin · #4 (**permalink**) 02-17-2017, 06:59 AM

Most fiction writers wait until an event is history before they re invent the story. It is amusing how the "fake news Network tries to rewrite history as it unfolds.

President Trump concedes nothing.

First the 9th district Court has "suspended" it's activity in the case.
9th Circuit Court?s latest word on the travel ban: Your move, Mr. President - LA Times

And secondly, the president is re writing the EO to more specifically implement it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/u...cuit.html?_r=0

So, who has "conceded?

The game is on.

Manitou · #5 (**permalink**) 02-17-2017, 07:03 AM

Fergy, go chew a prune, and some camel shlt.

ShivaTD · #6 (**permalink**) 02-17-2017, 07:30 AM

Quote:

The Justice Department said in court filings on Thursday that Trump will replace the current executive order and that they will not continue litigating the challenge brought by Washington state.

The administration is going to repackage the same "Muslim ban" in an attempt to circumvent the First Amendment but it's still going to be a ban based upon religion because it won't be supported by a documented threat because the "documented threats" are already protected against.

The new executive order is going to be just as unconstitutional as the current executive order because it's anticipated to be based upon the same "Ban Muslims" campaign promise.

Once again the administration is going to cite U.S. Code › Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter II › Part II › § 1182 that states:

Quote:

(f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
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.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

What they are going to continue to ignore is that a "Presidential finding" must be a statement of fact and not of prejudicial opinion. Not a single "fact" has been presented in any federal court to support the presidential executive order because there's no facts that support a "Muslim ban" or a ban based upon "Nationality" to prevent acts of terrorism.

Manitou · #7 (**permalink**) 02-17-2017, 07:45 AM

When are dummies going to understand that this is not a Muslim ban if Muslim dummies from other countries can come in?

FrancSevin · #8 (**permalink**) 02-17-2017, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShivaTD

The administration is going to repackage the same "Muslim ban" in an attempt to circumvent the First Amendment but it's still going to be a ban based upon religion because it won't be supported by a documented threat because the "documented threats" are already protected against.

The new executive order is going to be just as unconstitutional as the current executive order because it's anticipated to be based upon the same "Ban Muslims" campaign promise.

Once again the administration is going to cite U.S. Code › Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter II › Part II › § 1182 that states:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

What they are going to continue to ignore is that a "Presidential finding" must be a statement of fact and not of prejudicial opinion. Not a single "fact" has been presented in any federal court to support the presidential executive order because there's no facts that support a "Muslim ban" or a ban based upon "Nationality" to prevent acts of terrorism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ates_post-9/11

These are terrorist plots we successfully foiled. At great risk, and great cost in diverted resources.

More to the point, I would ask,,,; How many US citizens must die on USA soil before the "findings" become sufficient to render them as FACT?

RedState · #9 (**permalink**) 02-17-2017, 09:00 AM

The new EO is the same as the last one, but has "can't be struck down in court" written in crayon at the bottom.

Seriously though, if they word it correctly and make it not effect the due-process of Greencard and Visa holders they can maybe make it work. They've actually got people who know what they are doing writing it now instead of Bannon laughing maniacally writing it using ink from the blood of dead babies.

Good rundown of the issue on the Opening Arguments podcast.

OA43: Explaining the 9th Circuit's Ruling on Trump's Muslim Ban - Opening Arguments

ShivaTD · #10 (**permalink**) 02-17-2017, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 300 H and H

Why do you lefties want Muslims here in the first place?

Because we believe in the US Constitution including the First Amendment:

Quote:

First Amendment - U.S. Constitution

First Amendment - Religion and Expression Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. - See more at: First Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw

Quote:

Originally Posted by 300 H and H

When is enough, enough?

When we truly have freedom of religion in the United States where people are not barred from immigrating to the United States based upon their religious beliefs.

The "lefties" want to prevent terrorists from coming to the United States while the "righties" want to prevent Muslims from coming to the United States.

The "lefties" believe in religious tolerance while the "righties" believe in religious intolerance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 300 H and H

Why do you want illegals to be legal? Why do you want all who want to come here allowed to do so?

Political refugees, that undergo the most extensive vetting process that typically takes two years and eliminates anyone of even questionable motive, is not "illegal immigration" and it's highly limited. The vetting process is so good that we don't have a single case of a political refugee committing a terrorist attack in over forty years.

This isn't even a question of "illegals" being in the United States because everyone admitted is on a visa and has been subjected to the processes for vetting that's prevented any international act of terrorism from occurring in the United States since 9/11/2001. The vetting processes for visas have been constantly updated based upon identifiable threats under both the Bush administration and the Obama administration and they're the best they can possibly be at the moment and hopefully, as no potential threats are identified, they will continue to be upgraded.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 300 H and H

Do you know and understand the history of emigration to this country?

Yes we do. We know that the Constitution doesn't enumerate any power to the federal government to restrict immigration because the founders opposed immigration restrictions. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and perhaps most importantly James Madison that was highly involved in creating the Constitution opposed immigration restrictions because they violate the Right of Liberty of the person denied immigration.

The words of Thomas Jefferson ring true today just like they did when the United States was created:

Quote:

"I hold the right of expatriation to be inherent in every man by the laws of nature, and incapable of being rightfully taken from him even by the united will of every other person in the nation. If the laws have provided no particular mode by which the right of expatriation may be exercised, the individual may do it by any effectual and unequivocal act or declaration." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1806. FE 8:458

"Expatriation [is] a natural right, and acted on as such by all nations in all ages." --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:12

"Our ancestors... possessed a right, which nature has given to all men, of departing from the country in which chance, not choice, has placed them, of going in quest of new habitations, and of there establishing new societies, under such laws and regulations as, to them, shall seem most likely to promote public happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:185, Papers 1:121

The Right of Expatriation, as Jefferson states, is the Right of the Person to immigrate from their country of birth to either a land or existing nation of their choice. No person or nation has the authority even by unanimous declaration, to deny this immigration and if the laws do not provide for that right the may exercise their Right of Expatriation by any effectual and unequivocal act or declaration.

The "illegal alien" that immigrates to the United States for peaceful purposes is exercising their Right of Expatriation that the people of the United States and the United States government have no authority to deny.

But let's continue with a few more statements by Jefferson where he establishes that it is our obligation as Americans to provide the asylum for the refugees from other countries.:

Quote:

"Shall we refuse the unhappy fugitives from distress that hospitality which the savages of the wilderness extended to our fathers arriving in this land? Shall oppressed humanity find no asylum on this globe? The Constitution, indeed, has wisely provided that for admission to certain offices of important trust a residence shall be required sufficient to develop character and design. But might not the general character and capabilities of a citizen be safely communicated to every one manifesting a bona fide purpose of embarking his life and fortunes permanently with us?" --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:338

"It [has] been the wise policy of these states to extend the protection of their laws to all those who should settle among them of whatever nation or religion they might be and to admit them to a participation of the benefits of civil and religious freedom, and... the benevolence of this practice as well as its salutary effects [has] rendered it worthy of being continued in future times." --Thomas Jefferson: Proclamation, 1781. Papers 4:505

"America is now, I think, the only country of tranquility and should be the asylum of all those who wish to avoid the scenes which have crushed our friends in [other lands]." --Thomas Jefferson to Mrs. Church, 1793. FE 6:289

Jefferson on Politics & Government: Immigration

My maternal ancestors immigrated to American around 1725-1750 to escape the oppression of the Quakers in England and they supported the American Revolution.

My wife's maternal ancestors immigrated more recently in the early 20th Century to escape the oppression of the Jews in Eastern Europe.

Both of us have a personal reason based upon our own family histories to extend the same asylum from persecution and oppression that people are being subjected to by tyrannical societies, government, and terrorists today. We do that because we're Americans and because it's what America has always stood for.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following User Says Thank You to Manitou For This Useful Post:
FrancSevin

The Following User Says Thank You to ShivaTD For This Useful Post:
RedState