sarcasm. Progs think every sensible notion is racist. Even though Dems are the party of the KKK and for that matter; of slavery.
Since 9/11, 72 persons have entered into this country LEGALLY from the "banned" nations who have since been convicted as terrorists or on terror-related offenses. Those are just the convicted ones. The Minneapolis mall and Ohio State slashers were killed before they could do more damage. Just because the "ban" doesn't stop them all from coming in doesn't mean it shouldn't be implemented. As far as being able to "overrule" the judicial branch- we have co-equal branches of government...not a supreme branch of unelected dictators-for-life wearing black robes handing down unchallenged rulings from the bench. This judges' decision did not even reference the statute which is the basis for the ExO- just questioned the wisdom and necessity thereof. The pompous *** couldn't even bother to get his facts correct (dozens of terrorists from the banned countries not "none" as he claimed) much less realize he isn't even entitled (no security clearance) to the intelligence behind the rationale behind the ExO. In this case, the President has every right to ignore the judges ruling. National security, and all. But I suspect out of deference he will only re-write it, more narrowly this time.
I would like to see that line in the constitution about ignoring what you don't like. Obama could have made the same claim when he was stopped from using prosecutorial discretion with illegal immigrants. There is a constitutional method for removing judges, and the reason they get lifetime appointments is so they can't be unduly influenced by political whims. This "so called judge" was not a bleeding heart liberal appointee. I can't say the same for the 9th circuit court, but we also need to follow our constitution, even when it means we are not going to get our own way. What really needs to happen is that we stop appointing judges based on our favored ideology, and start looking at their record of correctly interpreting the constitution. When we know the political leanings of a federal judge we are bound to his or her ideology, not loyalty to the constitution. I realize that this is a naive hope, because we all have our bias. When the president's spokesman says the authority of the president to protect us shall not be questioned, I will question more. Of the people, by the people, and held accountable by the people. If Trump would have handled this in a different way he probably would have already been moving forward. He is going to appoint the next justice on the scotus, but if he goes to the high court now it is going to end in a tie, and the ruling will stand. And for everyone complaining about the dissenters, this is what you sounded like for the last 8 years.
The NDAA authorizes the indefinite detention of any foreigner suspected of being a terrorist, without trial. Nowhere in the NDAA does it state what that level of suspicion must rise to (i.e. reasonableness.) Is it such a stretch to say that the prevention of entry into the country is in effect a type of detention? That being said, in this case regarding the ExO in question; the law is crystal clear: "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." The law is codified and has no provision for judicial oversight on the merits or judgement of the president.
That is all fine and good. I have no problem with a 90 day pause, or the authority of the president to do it. But like I said, the effectiveness of this ban that does not include nations that terrorists that came here from is limited. Since 9-11 how many shoes have actually had explosives in them? We face a greater danger from drunk pilots. Now if you want to inspect the shoes of someone from the UAE, or Saudi Arabia on that end go for it. I saw the report on the shoe bomber, and know that if he had been successful it would have broken the plane into two pieces. I still don't think taking my shoes off at the airport is going to stop someone determined to kill people. Like I said, the president is eventually going to win this, but it would have happened much quicker if he would have shown some respect to a person who did not agree with him. If he really has it together, he and his team should have it figured out by the time his new appointee takes his role on the court. I suspect though, that he will just continue this pissing match and complain about how unfair it is when the opposition does to the republicans the same things that the republicans did to the last president.
