A truncated version of a story
about his whiny-ass speech and general crybaby bullshit.
Trump vows to fight ‘terrible’ travel ban ruling
from
Hawaii judge
Hunter Walker
Yahoo News
In a speech in
Nashville, Tenn., on Wednesday, President Trump railed against a nationwide
temporary restraining order that has put a halt to the revised
version of his travel ban. Trump described the decision by a federal judge in
Honolulu a few hours earlier as a “flawed ruling” and as “unprecedented
judicial overreach” that he suggested was politically motivated. He also
declared that he is willing to take the legal battle all the way to the Supreme
Court and predicted that he will ultimately emerge victorious.
“We’re going to
fight this terrible ruling. We’re going to take our case as far as it needs to
go, including all the way up to the Supreme Court,” he said. “We’re going to
win. We’re going to keep our citizens safe, and regardless, we’re going to keep
our citizens safe. Believe me.”
Trump began
discussing the ruling by announcing that he had to deliver some “bad news” and
assuring his audience that he would “turn it into good.” He noted that the
decision by Hawaii District Judge Derrick Watson came from “part of the much
overturned Ninth Circuit court.” Trump also pointed out that the ban in
question was a “watered-down” version of his initial executive order of Jan.
27, which was also blocked by a federal judge.
“A judge
has just blocked our executive order on travel and refugees coming into our
country from certain countries. The order he blocked was a watered-down version
of the first order that was also blocked by another judge — and should have
never been blocked to start with,” Trump said.
The new version of
the travel ban was issued on March 6. It was designed to meet the objections to
the first executive order, which blocked travelers from seven predominantly
Muslim nations — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — from
entering the United States. It also barred all refugees from entering the
country for 120 days and indefinitely halted the entry of all Syrian refugees.
Trump and government
attorneys have argued that the orders are necessary security measures, focusing
on countries that they consider pose elevated risks of terrorism to the United
States. The January order sparked widespread protests and legal challenges,
including one from the states of Washington and Minnesota that resulted in a
temporary restraining order by a federal judge in Seattle. After that ruling
was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Trump administration
dropped the case and drew up a more limited order.
Among
other changes, Trump’s revised ban removed Iraq from the list of countries
singled out and exempted permanent residents and current visa holders from the
restrictions. Speaking in Nashville, Trump described the second version of the
executive order as “tailored to the dictates” of the Ninth Circuit.
Trump also said that
he wished he had never revised the order.
“Remember this, I
wasn’t thrilled, but the lawyers all said, ‘Oh, let’s tailor it.’ This is a
watered-down version of the first one,” Trump explained. “This is a
watered-down version, and let me tell you something, I think we ought to go
back to the first one and go all the way, which is what I wanted to do in
the first place.”
When the
first executive order was suspended, attorneys arguing against it suggested the
ban violated the
Constitution’s ban on religious discrimination and pointed to
statements Trump made during his campaign last year calling for a “total and
complete shutdown of Muslims” entering the United States. In the lawsuit
against the revised ban, Hawaii’s attorney general similarly pointed to
previous statements by Trump and his aides. Government lawyers have argued that
those comments should have no bearing on the legality of the ban.
In his decision
Wednesday, Judge Watson cited Trump’s call for a “total and complete shutdown
of Muslims,” and statements made by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a
top Trump ally, who claimed that the president had approached him to find a
legal way to implement a “Muslim ban.”
“These plainly
worded statements, made in the months leading up to and contemporaneous with
the signing of the Executive Order, and, in many cases, made by the Executive
himself, betray the Executive Order’s stated secular purpose. Any reasonable,
objective observer would conclude … that the stated secular purpose of the
Executive Order is, at the very least, ‘secondary to a religious objective’ of
temporarily suspending the entry of Muslims,” Watson wrote in his ruling.
No comments:
Post a Comment