Judges halt second ravel Ban; no surprise. WH staff fails again. Weak, inexperienced staff hired by Tweety not working.
"The Courts and President Trump’s Words"
By Jeffrey Toobin
March 17, 2017
It appears Tweety's staff is not aware how judges judge things, and actions, to them, can follow words not written. Tweety's campaign rhetoric sticks with him even I his supporters and sycophants wish or want his campaign words to disappear.
"Two federal judges just invalidated President Donald Trump’s executive order on immigration, and both for the same reasons. In highly similar opinions—each one is forty-three pages long—federal district judges in Hawaii and Maryland used statements Donald Trump made as a candidate for President to conclude that his revised travel ban on people from six majority-Muslim nations represented unconstitutional religious discrimination.The judges focussed on many of the same words from candidate Trump and his supporters. For example, on December 7, 2015, then-candidate Trump posted a “Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration” on his campaign Web site, in which he called “for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our representatives can figure out what is going on.” After he became President, Trump’s surrogate Rudolph Giuliani explained on television how the executive order came to be. He said, “When [Trump] first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up. He said, ‘Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.’ “ These statements, among others, prompted the judges to declare the executive order unconstitutional. Their reliance on such statements leads to a peculiar and unsettling possibility: that an identical order would be upheld if Barack Obama had issued it, but that this one was invalidated because Trump was the author.
Are these kinds of statements appropriate evidence for judges to rely on in deciding the validity of Presidential orders? Kate Shaw, a professor at Cardozo Law School, has a forthcoming article in Texas Law Review that, though it was written before the travel-ban litigation, illuminates the relevant legal issues. Shaw’s article does not include examples of judges referring to campaign statements (which may never have been done before), but there are several examples of judges referring to Presidential statements as guides to interpreting underlying executive actions."
Nasty words precede nasty and illegal actions Tweety. Here is the conclusion.
"In rough terms, Shaw believes that judges should regard Presidential statements about executive action in a similar way that they examine legislative intent with regard to laws—relevant, but not binding. She asserts that “courts should rely on presidential speech only where the president has publicly manifested an intent to enter the legal arena. This manifested intent should make clear that any particular speech is the product of deliberation, and that relevant stakeholders have focused significant attention on the issue.” She was writing in the pre-Trump era, but it seems fair to interpret her meaning as, “Don’t rely on Tweets.” But I would go further and reject the use of Presidential statements altogether. The Muslim ban is either constitutional or it’s not—and Donald Trump’s words on the campaign trail don’t settle that question one way or the other."
