Trump considers revising, replacing immigration executive order

In the aftermath of a federal appellate court’s decisive blow to Trump’s move to ban citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the United States, Trump vowed Friday that he would continue the fight in court and unveil new security measures next week.

“We are going to do whatever is necessary to keep our country safe,” Trump said during a news conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. “We’ll be doing something very rapidly having to do with additional security for our country. You’ll be seeing that sometime next week.”

(Read the rest of the story here…)

1 thought on “Trump considers revising, replacing immigration executive order”

  1. Every law in this country depends on the assumption of innocence with one possible exception.
    Every other law presumes that the prosecutor has to prove his case beyond a shadow of doubt that the person is indeed guilty of something.
    That possible exception is anything concerning the charge of discrimination. You are considered by the courts to be guilty until your defense attorney proves you innocent of such a charge.
    This ingenious court is using discrimination to prove their case. Using Donald Trump’s own words when he was campaigning for President they have arrived at a charge of discrimination as a basis for the ruling and it has nothing to do with President Trump’s jurisdiction over the executive order.
    Thus the court of appeals is attempting to bypass the jurisdiction of the executive branch.
    No mention is made of jurisdiction of the President by this court of law. Instead they are going for the discrimination against muslim charge that the defense attorney must prove is not so in order to win the case.
    So what has to happen here is a clear zone by which discrimination is not relevant? That is where things get rather tricky.
    The government case is fairly simple and based on jurisdiction. The court fails to recognize that jurisdiction because of the implied discrimination against a religious group. It never gets to the point of jurisdiction over the issue of the executive order at all.
    It never gets to the issue of a valid concern for the safety of the citizens of this country.
    That is some very foxy judges that are nit-picking in order not to have to address the responsibility of the executive branch to maintain safety for the rest of us.
    It is prejudice. It is prejudice only because it does not address the real issue. The real issue is: was this President right to deny entry into this country based on probable cause that these people might cause our citizens to lose their lives in a religious conflict in the near future if these individuals are allowed into this country.
    In which case any discrimination charge is not the subject that needs to be addressed.
    Which brings us back to the subject of guilt by assumption or even guilt by past speeches made in the passion of trying to get elected.
    No elected official in the history of this country has ever fulfilled promises made in the heat of debates.
    So the statements made are probably not even valid evidence except in the case of guilt because of discrimination law.
    The risk of taking this attitude in a court of law is you are also automatically guilty judges if someone actually proves the President’s case by committing terrorism and violence against the people of this country. All of which our current President has stated in no uncertain terms.
    The question in my mind then becomes: How do you fire an Appeals Court Judge that makes questionable judgements in a court of law that cause someone to lose their life?

Comments are closed.