Trumps loose talk about Muslims gets weaponized in court against travel ban

[jpak]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/02/07/words-matter-trumps-loose-talk-about-muslims-gets-weaponized-in-court-against-travel-ban/?utm_term=.6c1964dd56a0

Throughout Donald Trump’s campaign and now into the first weeks of his presidency, critics suggested that he cool his incendiary rhetoric, that his words matter. His defenders responded that, as Corey Lewandowski said, he was being taken too “literally.” Some, like Vice President Pence, wrote it off to his “colorful style.” Trump himself recently explained that his rhetoric about Muslims is popular, winning him “standing ovations.”

No one apparently gave him anything like a Miranda warning: Anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law.

And that’s exactly what’s happening now in the epic court battle over his travel ban, currently blocked by a temporary order set for argument Tuesday before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

The states of Washington and Minnesota, which sued to block Trump’s order, are citing the president’s inflammatory rhetoric as evidence that the government’s claims — it’s not a ban and not aimed at Muslims — are shams.

<more>

[randome]

1. Can the court also question his claim that the ban is for American safety?

I mean, the countries affected by the ban have not produced any American terrorists. That seems like a pertinent point of discussion in court.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Wounded Bear]

2. Judge Robarts was recorded in court asking that question and not liking the response...

It's already in the transcripts as part of the decision making process, so the DoJ team has to overcome that somehow.

To lift the stay, and that's all that is at stake right now not the base EO itself, the plaintiff would have to somehow prove national security/safety of the people argument about 7 nations with no history of exporting terror to the US. Sounds like a tall order.

I expect the 9th Circuit to maintain the stay blocking the EO for now.

[frazzled]

4. That is what this filing submitted to the Court states

A filing has been submitted by Madeleine K. Albright, Avril D. Haines, Michael V. Hayden, John F. Kerry, John E. McLaughlin, Lisa O. Monaco, Michael J. Morell, Janet A. Napolitano, Leon E. Panetta, and Susan E. Rice. Here is one part of their statement to the Court:

We all agree that the United States faces real threats from terrorist networks and must take all prudent and effective steps to combat them, including the appropriate vetting of travelers to the United States. We all are nevertheless unaware of any specific threat that would justify the travel ban established by the Executive Order issued on January 27, 2017. We view the Order as one that ultimately undermines the national security of the United States, rather than making us safer. In our professional opinion, this Order cannot be justified on national security or foreign policy grounds. It does not perform its declared task of “protecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States.” To the contrary, the Order disrupts thousands of lives, including those of refugees and visa holders all previously vetted by standing procedures that the Administration has not shown to be inadequate. It could do long-term damage to our national security and foreign policy interests, endangering U.S. troops in the field and disrupting counterterrorism and national security partnerships. It will aid ISIL’s propaganda effort and serve its recruitment message by feeding into the narrative that the United States is at war with Islam. It will hinder relationships with the very communities that law enforcement professionals need to address the threat. It will have a damaging humanitarian and economic impact on the lives and jobs of American citizens and residents. And apart from all of these concerns, the Order offends our nation’s laws and values.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/02/06/17-35105%20opposition%20exhibit.pdf

[C_U_L8R]

3. There are endless soundbites of Trump

basically shooting himself in the foot with his Muslim ban.
All they need to do is press 'play'.

[Nwgirl503]

5. I was flabbergasted watching the court proceedings

When the DOJ attorney kept reiterating that the DOJ's position was that the court didn't have a right to look at the meaning or intention behind the order, period. Essentially, from what I understood, they were arguing that whether it was religious in nature wasn't for the court to even question or delve into.

Isn't that the crux of the legal case being brought against the order? That it IS religious in nature, thereby denying and violating due process of a constitutionally protected class of citizens?

[Wounded Bear]

6. Kind of understand the strategy...

DoJ was trying to focus on whether Trump had the authority to do it and leave it at that.

The Judge countered, rightly I think, that it made a difference if the EO was based on rational rather than imagined threats. Since none of the countries in the ban have had actual links to terrorist activity in the US, it would appear on its face that the EO is not based on countering real threats, but rather is based on illegitimate fear mongering.

[tblue37]

8. Esepecially since countries that were tied to terrorist acts here were excluded from the ban--

obviously because of Trump's business ties to them.

[tblue37]

7. Acting AG Yates gave his language in his frequent comments as the main reason

she considered the EO an unconstitutional ban against a specific religious group and therefore would not defend it in court.