In a heated debate, the Supreme Court appeared to be prepared to travel with Mr Trump on the travel ban.


Last fall, demonstrators held a travel ban against the trump administration in Washington, dc, which was tried by the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
In a heated debate on Wednesday, the justices appeared inclined to maintain a third and current version of the trump travel ban.
Anthony Kennedy, for example, the judge often make a decisive vote in the disputed case, they repeatedly to present an opinion, think the court will not usually guess the President’s decision to national security – even in the ban based on nationality.
If the court does support the government – expected to make a decision in June – it would be a significant victory for one of Mr Trump’s political pillars. It is a matter of radicalising the two sides, calling on trump supporters to be unduly political and inciting the moral sentiments of the left. Between the travel ban and the proposed fence between the us and Mexico, the idea of such exclusion is fuelling Mr Trump’s resistance and inspiring liberals in the middle of the year.
In court on Wednesday, Kennedy faced challenger assert that a travel ban is indefinite and permanent, resolutely answered and said to them, so you want the President said he “believes that in six months, we will have a secure world?”
Listen to the complete interpretation here.
Justice Stephen Breyer challenged deputy attorney general Noel Francisco’s assertion that the current program still allows a large number of people to enter the United States from these countries. How many? “Asked breyer. About 400, Francisco replied.
“This is 400 of 150 million,” breyer said, exasperated.
Later, on behalf of those who challenge the ban’s lawyer, Neal life! Pointed out that the current process is still ruled out many of the people who have reason to go to the United States, such as a 10-year-old girl, they could not move and want the United States. For medical purposes.
Perhaps the most difficult problem facing the government comes from judge Elena Kagan. She proposed the hypothesis: imagine a “fierce anti-semite”, who said “all sorts of denigration of jews and provoked a lot of hatred and hatred” was elected President.
The President issued an order to “point out my name and pass through the name in my process,” but it was an announcement that Israel would not allow anyone to enter.
Francisco responded that if the cabinet identifies a national security risk, “even in his private mind, the President will be allowed to follow this advice, and he will be hostile.”
But, he points out, this is not the case.
“We just said it was a” out-of-the-box President, “kagan responded wily.
This caused direct laughter in court.
Francisco is adamant that the court will have to maintain the order if the cabinet agrees there is a national security risk.
Mr Kagan argues that this is not what the President feels, but what a reasonable observer can explain.
The court heard the controversy over the trump administration’s travel ban, so Deeba jacked gave Hena Zuberi a kiss on Wednesday when he protested to the Supreme Court.
As Donald trump campaign rhetoric about Muslim obviously in the background, Kennedy seems to be worried about this, and put forward a different hypothesis: assumes that the mayor in the long-term “hate speech” movement after he was elected, then in his second day, he with “behavior consistent with these statements. ”
Everything he said during the campaign was “irrelevant”? Kennedy asked.
Yes, Francisco answered.
Francisco said, adding that a travel ban was not a Muslim ban trump, because if this is the case, “it’s going to be the most people may think of invalid Muslim ban”, because most of about 50 most Muslim countries will not be included in the ban.
Katyal said he agreed that the campaign statement may not be decisive. The problem, he says, is that Mr. Trump and his staff have reignited a campaign statement calling for a Muslim ban.
Katyal observed that after the third edition of the ban, the President forwarded three vicious anti-muslim video.
But, as the end of the debate, Francisco said, the President made clear on September 25, he has no intention of implementing Muslim ban, he made it clear that muslims in this country are American. He praised Islam as one of the greatest countries in the world. ”
How do we get here?
The trump administration’s travel ban raises huge questions about the structure of the U.S. government and national values.
The problem is the third version of the ban, which Mr Trump complains of as a “desalination” version. The court allowed it to take effect when the case was filed, but the lower court ruled that all three versions were in violation of federal law or unconstitutional.
Just like the two before the ban, version 3.0 prohibited almost all travelers from five major Muslim countries, and banned passengers from north Korea and government officials from venezuela.
The problem in this case is history:
Can the court review an immigration executive order that calls for national security?
Did the President violate immigration laws on discrimination based on nationality?
Does the executive order violate the constitution’s ban on religious discrimination?
The last word of the word is the prohibition of travel. The importance of the argument was not lost in court. For the first time since the issue of same-sex marriage in 2015, the court allowed audio to be distributed on the same day. Still, people started lining up at 7 a.m. on Sunday, hoping to get a seat on Wednesday.
The court itself is under great pressure. There are still about two months left in this term, and a large number of cases have yet to be decided.
And one of the justices is getting hurt. Justice Sonia sotomayor continued to work despite the great pain caused by the broken shoulders. She is expected to undergo a shoulder joint replacement sometime next week, and all subsequent arguments about the term have been completed.
In making the decision, the court will not only review the summary of the government and challenge bans, but will also review 71 court briefs. There are 54 is submitted by a group of challenger, including the United States Catholic bishops conference to submit a briefing, and some former republican and democratic government submitted by former national security experts in a series of summary, and more than 20 retired senior generals and admirals.
In several court briefings, they argued that the travel ban not only violated U.S. law but also harmed national security.
“It actually makes us less safe,” Michael sea said in an interview with NPR. He was one of five former CIA directors who signed a summary of the anti-travel ban.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here