Trump’s attacks on courts over travel ban dismay his own SC pick

WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump renewed his attack on the courts Wednesday, describing them as "so political" as a panel of judges weigh his executive order barring refugees and visitors from seven mainly Muslim countries.

The contentious ban has been frozen by the courts and has embroiled Trump in an arm wrestle with the judicial branch, less than three weeks into his presidency.

Speaking to police chiefs and sheriffs, Trump condemned as "disgraceful" a hearing Tuesday in which three federal appeals judges heard arguments appeared skeptical about the government's case to reinstate the ban.

"Courts seem to be so political," he said.

Trump's comments have sparked a firestorm in a country where such personal and vitriolic attacks by a president on another, independent branch of government are rare.

The uproar extended to Trump's own Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch.

He described Trump's attack on the Seattle judge who froze the ban as "disheartening" and "demoralizing," according to spokesman Ron Bonjean.

Trump's ban was suspended nationwide on Friday, after two US states sought to have it overturned on grounds of religious discrimination and because it had caused "irreparable injury."

New attorney general

The agency tasked with defending the ban in court amid the legal standoff got its new chief, after the US Senate overrode fierce opposition to confirm Jeff Sessions as attorney general.

His nomination process saw fierce debate about his civil rights record and Democratic concern over whether he serves as the top US law enforcement officer independent from President Donald Trump.

In the hearing before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, a Justice Department lawyer argued that the president had clear authority to order the ban on national security grounds.

"This is a traditional national security judgment that is assigned to the political branches and the president," August Flentje said.

Critics of the ban claim it violates the US Constitution by discriminating against people on the basis of their religion.

"Has the government pointed to any evidence connecting these countries with terrorism?" asked Judge Michelle Friedland, who was appointed by Barack Obama.

Flentje said the government had not had an opportunity to present such evidence, given the speed at which the case had moved.

The court must decide whether to maintain the lower court's suspension, modify it or lift it. The ruling by the judges -- two were appointed by Democratic presidents and a third by a Republican -- is expected before the end of the week.

The case is likely to eventually wind up on appeal in the US Supreme Court, which currently is short-handed and evenly divided between liberal and conservative justices. A tie there would leave in place the appeals court decision.

Should Trump's nominee to fill the vacant seat be confirmed by the Senate, he could break the tie.

'Horrible, dangerous and wrong'

Trump vented his frustration in tweets, referring to the ban's suspension as "the horrible, dangerous and wrong decision."

He went further in a rambling speech to the law enforcement chiefs, which at points drew polite applause.

"It's really incredible to me that we have a court case that's going on so long," he said.

Trump then read out the text of a law -- interspersed with his commentary -- that confers on the president authority to suspend entry to any alien or class of alien deemed detrimental to the interests of the United States.

His decree summarily denied entry to all refugees for 120 days, and travelers from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days. Refugees from Syria were blocked indefinitely.

Top administration officials have argued it is needed to keep out Islamic State and Al-Qaeda fighters migrating from Middle East hotspots, insisting time is needed to implement stricter vetting procedures.

Travel analysis firm ForwardKeys says travel bookings to the United States fell 6.5 percent the week after the ban, compared to last year, with a sharp drop in numbers from the targeted countries.

Blame shifting

The sudden rollout of the restrictions, and their blanket nature, sparked protests and international condemnation. Polls now show eroding public support for the move in the United States, amid jubilant scenes at airports of returning immigrants.

Shifting the blame to his security advisers, Trump said he had proposed giving a one-month notice, but his law enforcement experts told him "people will pour in before the toughness."

"I think it's sad, I think it's a sad day," Trump said.

"I think our security is at risk today, and it will be at risk until such time as we are entitled and get what we are entitled to as citizens of this country, as chiefs, as sheriffs of this country. We want security."

source: interaksyon.com

Landmark rulings see US Supreme Court move to the left

WASHINGTON DC - With four justices appointed by Democratic presidents and five by Republican leaders, the US Supreme Court is generally perceived as being weighted in favor of conservatives.

But after two historic rulings in a week supporting progressive causes -- legalizing gay marriage across America and upholding President Barack Obama's health care overhaul -- the conservatives are lashing out.

They are slamming what they see as a blatant disregard of the law in favor of a win in the court of public opinion.

Ultra-conservative justice Antonin Scalia called the 5-4 ruling in favor of legalizing gay marriage nationwide a "judicial putsch" that was "lacking even a thin veneer of law."

"Just who do we think we are?" asked Chief Justice John Roberts, who also opposed the gay marriage ruling.

He said the ruling had "nothing to do with" the Constitution and blasted the decision as "an act of will, not legal judgment."

Scalia also lambasted his colleagues for voting 6-3 to uphold "Obamacare," which has extended health insurance to millions of Americans.

Conservatives say Obamacare represents unconstitutional government intrusion into the lives of private citizens.

"Today's opinion changes the usual rules of statutory interpretation for the sake of the Affordable Care Act," Scalia wrote.

"We should start calling this law SCOTUScare," he added, using the acronym for the Supreme Court.

 'Judicial activism'

Aside from the health care and gay marriage rulings, the court also voted in the past week to uphold a key tool used to fight housing discrimination -- another big win for the Obama administration.

In the past, other landmark Supreme Court rulings have ushered in the legalization of abortion, the end of racial segregation in schools, and the authorization of mixed-race marriages.

But this week's decisions left some accusing the court of siding with public opinion -- and not the Constitution.

Ryan Anderson, a research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, called the gay marriage ruling "perhaps as clear of an example of judicial activism as any we have seen in recent years –- or are likely (hopefully) to see in the future."

"The majority of the Court simply replaced the people’s opinion about what marriage is with its own," he said.

In each of this week's three main big rulings, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was appointed in the 1980s under the conservative Ronald Reagan but is considered moderate, sided with his progressive counterparts.

Roberts, the chief justice, also added his vote to the health care ruling, perhaps to protect the court from accusations it voted along political lines.

Constitution 'pliable, long-lasting guide'

"This is not about a 'conservative' or 'liberal' court," said Lisa Linsky, a partner at the McDermott Will & Emery law firm.

"This is about the highest court in the land being cognizant of the world around it and the fundamental principles and protections that are embedded in our constitution," Linsky said.

"The founding fathers of this country created the constitution to be a pliable, long-lasting guide for living life in a civilized society," she added.

These cases "impacted real people in profound and far-reaching ways," she told AFP, noting that "any other result would have caused chaos."

If the Obamacare ruling had gone the other way, millions of people could have been left without health insurance.

"Their attention in that case to the economic realities of the health insurance market was part of their statutory interpretation, not some free-floating analysis of what would be good policy," said David Cruz, an expert from the University of Southern California Gould School of Law.

In the gay marriage ruling, Kennedy wrote that same-sex couples should not be denied the "constellation of benefits" afforded married partners, such as tax and inheritance rights.

Mary Margaret Penrose, a law professor at Texas A&M University, noted that "the receipt of these benefits traditionally are matters of policy and legislation, not constitutional mandate."

Steve Sanders, who teaches constitutional litigation at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law, said the court should be expected to show some flexibility.

"The point is not that we should make law by opinion poll," he said.

"The point is that, under our Constitution, we expect courts to step in and act when a minority group is being denied a fundamental right based on the transient passions and discredited motives of a political majority."

Statistics show that during the current Supreme Court session, which is set to end Monday, the justices have taken more left-leaning decisions.

According to a New York Times analysis, about 56 percent of rulings by the court were considered progressive.

source: interaksyon.com

Facebook 'Like' button is free speech right - US court

WASHINGTON DC - Hitting the "Like" button on Facebook is an element of free speech protected by the US constitution, a federal court ruled Wednesday, in a case closely watched by employment lawyers.

The US Court of Appeals based in Richmond, Virginia, made the judgment in the case of a Virginia sheriff's department worker who claimed he was fired for exercising his free speech rights -- in this case "liking" a political opponent of his boss.

"His conduct qualifies as speech," the court said in a 81-page decision that sent the case back to a lower court for review of those issues.

"In sum, liking a political candidate's campaign page communicates the user's approval of the candidate and supports the campaign by associating the user with it.

"In this way, it is the Internet equivalent of displaying a political sign in one's front yard, which the Supreme Court has held is substantive speech."

The American Civil Liberties Union and Facebook both filed legal briefs supporting the view that the "Like" button is protected speech.

The ACLU brief said "liking" something on Facebook "expresses a clear message -- one recognized by millions of Facebook users and non-Facebook users -- and is both pure speech and symbolic expression that warrants constitutional protection."

source: interaksyon.com