By Trump's Logic, His Foot-Dragging on 'Extreme Vetting' Endangers Us All

An appeals court upholds an injunction against the president's travel ban but once again leaves him perfectly free to improve screening.


White House

By upholding another injunction against President Trump's travel ban yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reinforced the impression that his attempts to protect Americans from terrorism have been stymied by unaccountable judges. The appeals court ruled that Trump's executive order exceeded his statutory authority because he did not make an evidence-based determination that admitting the people he wants to exclude would be "detrimental to the interests of the United States." Yet the same ruling eliminated the administration's last excuse for failing to impose the "extreme vetting" that Trump has been promising since his campaign.

When Trump issued his first executive order restricting entry into the country on January 27, he presented it as a temporary measure aimed at facilitating better screening procedures. "We will again be issuing visas to all countries once we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure policies over the next 90 days," he said on Facebook. White House Press Secetary Sean Spicer likewise emphasized that the whole point was to "make sure that the people who are coming in are vetted properly." According to the order itself, the 90-day ban on travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries and the 120-day ban on refugees were supposed to give the administration time to "ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals." That was 137 days ago.

The first order instructed the secretary of homeland security, in consultation with the secretary of state and the director of national intelligence, to "immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the [Immigration and Nationality Act] in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat." Although courts prevented the traveler and refugee bans from taking effect, the administration was still free to work on that review. Instead it focused on revising the executive order to address some of the concerns raised by critics and the courts.

The revised order, published on March 6, reiterated that the administration wants to "improve the screening and vetting protocols and procedures associated with the visa-issuance process and the [refugee program]." At that point there was no legal barrier to such improvements. That remained true until March 15, when Derrick Watson, a federal judge in Hawaii, issued a temporary restraining order (later converted into a preliminary injunction) that not only blocked the bans on travelers and refugees but impeded the internal review mandated by the order. Yesterday the 9th Circuit overturned the latter aspect of the injunction, saying Watson had overreached. "Although other unenjoined sections of [the executive order] permit interagency coordination to review vetting procedures," the appeals court said, "the district court nonetheless abused its discretion in enjoining the inward-facing tasks of Sections 2 and 6."

The upshot is that the administration is once again perfectly free to develop better screening procedures for travelers and refugees. But instead it is focused on convincing the Supreme Court to overturn the injunctions against the executive order.

Even allowing for the inhibiting impact of Watson's injunction, Trump has done remarkably little to improve admission standards he claims are dangerously lax. The New York Times notes that "the rules for admitting people from the six countries covered by the latest travel ban [who were also covered by the previous ban] have remained almost entirely unchanged."

Trump has argued that courts are endangering national security by blocking his travel ban. "Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril," he tweeted in response to a February 3 ruling that blocked the original executive order. "If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!" The next day, Trump warned that "the threat from radical Islamic terrorism is very real," so "courts must act fast" to uphold his order. As the 9th Circuit recognized, the security rationale for the travel ban is actually very weak. But taking the president at his word, his foot-dragging on extreme vetting poses an unconscionable threat to all of us.

NEXT: A.M. Links: Jeff Sessions Testifies Today Before Senate Intelligence Committee, Golden State Warriors Beat Cleveland Cavaliers to Win NBA Championship

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. See that’s the thing I have never understood about this travel ban. Why does Trump need to ban any travel from anyone at all in order to improve vetting procedures?

    1. The idea was to not allow any more of them in under the old weak vetting procedures while new stronger ones were developed.

      1. Fine. But even if the courts stop the travel ban part, he can still attempt to improve the “weak” vetting procedures anyway.

        1. except he can’t under the March 15 order from the HI nutjob.

          1. That is not true according to what I have found.

            Here is Trump’s EO. Here is the judge’s order. The judge’s order only blocked Sections 2 and 6 of the EO, but it’s Section 5 of the EO which commands the departments to work on improve vetting procedures. Seems to me, they can continue to work on all the “extreme vetting” they want without interference from the courts.

            1. RTFA

              Yesterday the 9th Circuit overturned the latter aspect of the injunction, saying Watson had overreached. “Although other unenjoined sections of [the executive order] permit interagency coordination to review vetting procedures,” the appeals court said, “the district court nonetheless abused its discretion in enjoining the inward-facing tasks of Sections 2 and 6.”

              1. RTFEO. SECTION 5 is about requiring more extreme-y extreme vetting. That section is untouched. Is Trump working on this, or not?

                1. The more relevant part of Jacob’s post:

                  That remained true until March 15, when Derrick Watson, a federal judge in Hawaii, issued a temporary restraining order (later converted into a preliminary injunction) that not only blocked the bans on travelers and refugees but impeded the internal review mandated by the order.

                  That still left the administration half of the time it claimed it needed to work on this, so it’s fair to ask if they have anything to show for the pre-injunction time. But, more to Jacob’s point, they are again legally allowed to revise the vetting procedures, which are supposedly the motive for the ban, so they ought to be working on it again, right?

            2. Diane Reynolds (Paul.):

              To be sure, these new studies are preliminary and don’t decisively settle the issue.
              It’s difficult to know for sure how someone running away from one place might inadvertently turn the new place into the old place. I’m not sure why we have to look at immigrants of the foreign type to see the possible effects of demographic change on the electorate and subsequently the laws passed. Why, we can look at “immigrants” from one state to the other:
              Colorado’s politics have become positively Californian lately. There are new restrictions on guns. Pot is legal. The legislative agenda featured an expansion of alternative-energy use requirements for rural consumers. Gay couples can now enter into civil unions.
              There’s a reason for all this.
              Lots of Californians have moved to Denver and its environs, bringing a progressive strain of politics with them and angering more conservative parts of the state ? so much so that 10 northeastern counties are planning symbolic but serious votes on secession this fall.
              Here is an argument, on NPR no less, that essentially makes the argument that immigrants from California make states more like California.

              NPR article

        2. Its the President’s sole purpose to enforce the laws that Congress passes as he sees fit.

          The courts can review the laws to determine whether they are constitutional or not. The courts are prohibited by the separation of powers from telling the Executive how to carry out the law.

          In this case, the courts know that if they deem the related immigration laws unconstitutional then the President can bar anyone from entering the USA.

    2. If the problem is that the people who are being let in are terrorists, etc. because they haven’t been properly vetted, then we may let terrorists, etc. into the country–and that’s a problem from a security perspective. After all, the government does have a legitimate libertarian responsibility to protect our rights from foreign threats.

      These concerns are legitimate, too.

      Obama agreed to accept refugees from Australia housed at Manus Island and elsewhere. These are refugees that Australia has refused to admit. These refugee centers are so bad, they had to stop families with children there because the ones who were sent there were being systematically assaulted by other refugees.

      Yes, these people need to be vetted.

      1. “The Nauru files: cache of 2,000 leaked reports reveal scale of abuse of children in Australian offshore detention

        Exclusive: The largest cache of documents to be leaked from within Australia’s asylum seeker detention regime details assaults, sexual assaults and self-harm”

        —-The Guardian


        Why would we let these refugees in without extreme vetting?

        1. We already have extreme vetting, Ken. What Trump wants is “impossible vetting”. And when that doesn’t work, then – oh gee golly, guess we can’t invite those Muslims in after all!

          1. Chem, your definition of “extreme vetting” is the same as anyone on the left and different than people who are not lefties.

            1. Okay, fine. Why don’t you tell me specifically what you think is too lax with regards to the current refugee screening program that we have.

              1. 1) That people from countries that hate the USA cannot be banned for a period of time.
                2) The USA is admitting people, particularly women and children that probably have relatives killed by the USA. These people also come from cultures that value having babies like an assembly line. This is not risk worth taking.
                State Dept Refugee Program

                1. Well, good for you for actually addressing the substance of my question.

                  “1) That people from countries that hate the USA cannot be banned for a period of time.”

                  Do the applicants hate the USA, or does the applicant’s home country have a government that hates the USA? That’s an important difference. I don’t think we or anyone else should hold a government’s positions against citizens of that country.

                  “2) The USA is admitting people, particularly women and children that probably have relatives killed by the USA.”

                  Okay, and? If people are (rightly) resentful that our government killed their relatives, why would they be applying for refugee status here?

                  “These people also come from cultures that value having babies like an assembly line.”

                  Okay, and? I fail to see why this should be a bar against coming here.

                  1. 1) Both in many cases. I do think we should hold those views against people who have family ties to the old country.
                    2) They blame the US! Have you traveled outside the USA lately. Many people blame American tourists for what the US killing people. Rightly so.

                    Quite a few of these people don’t want to respect the constitution, freedom, property rights, and freedom of speech; they blame America for someone in their family getting killed; and their culture is to have a whole bunch of babies. Only a fool would let these people in.

                    Luckily, we actually don’t even need a reason to bar people from coming into the USA.

            2. But he’s not a Democrat.

              1. NTTAWWT

                1. TISWWT. At the very least you consistently parrot their talking points.

                  1. What’s wrong with being a Democrat, as opposed to, say, being a Republican?

                    Let me guess. Republicans are just “misguided” but Democrats are EEEEEEVIL????

                    1. And I find it rather amusing, that on this one issue of immigration, where I do happen to agree more with the Democrats than with the Republicans, that is enough in your mind to label me as one of those EVIL LIBRUL DEMOCRATZ when on virtually every other issue – certainly on pretty much every economic issue – I am resolutely opposed to what the Democrats are offering. Why does this one issue loom so large in your mind that it alone is enough for you to declare someone to be a member of the ENEMY TRIBE?

            3. So define it. Broad strokes are fine.

              1. People like “loveconstitution” here have no idea how refugee vetting works, they just believe what right-wing media has told them that the vetting is worthless. The right-wing media bubble pushes lies in order to sell xenophobia.

                1. Its not xenophobia because I don’t hate these people. You used a very big word today, so that was good for you.

                  I cited the State department website for the refugee process. You are the person who takes the lefty talking points to the hoop.

                  I think we have too many people in the USA. Many of these people do not share our values like freedom, Due Process and gun rights. Let them fight for their country.

                  How do expect people to not stand up for basic rights in their country and then come to the USA and fight for the Constitution and rights of others? They won’t and that is exactly why the left wants these people. Importing people (human trafficking if you ask me) in exchange for voting Democrat and that most immigrants will not fight for the Constitution is the agenda.

                  1. 1. Good on you for picking a relevant google link this time. The State Dept website is much less embarrassing a citation than a rando videography guide in a discussion about handheld recorders.

                    2. However, did you actually read the site? There is, for example, a bit about cultural orientation. You still haven’t explained what in that process you find to be a flaw, except…

                    3. …that refugees from certain countries are accepted at all. So it sounds less like stronger or smarter vetting, more like having no vetting at all because the program is shut down. If that is what Trump wants, it sounds quite simple, so why doesn’t he simply put that forward?

                    (and who is it you want refugees to be “fighting”? they’re not let in with the expectation of military service)

                    1. Presumably, to fight the government for more liberty instead of the expansion of the ‘free shit’ state if I had to guess.

                      When you’re running the land of milk and honey, are people coming for the freedom or are they coming for the milk and honey? Obviously it can be both, or either, but that’s why the United States limits the number of legal immigrants each year. Not the only reason, there are many others such as giving immigrants time to culturally acclimate, but I’m not sure if those reasons are that serious or not. They sound like wishful thinking to me.

                      Back when Ellis Island was in operation, and the welfare state was small-to-nonexistent, people came to the United States for the opportunity to work. That’s still somewhat true I think, but instead of letting in the Irish for manual labor we’re trying to let in people like Doctor’s since we’ve fucked our own markets for healthcare training so badly that we need to import them.

                      Immigration has become the catch-all solution for failed centralized government policy, at least in some cases, which is utterly amusing and informs you on why it is they’re always pushing for ‘more’ of it.

                    2. Syrian refugees would be fighting in their country.

                      _____ refugees would be fighting in their country.

                      As we did here in North America, we fought the British government to break away and form our own free nation.

                      I really don’t care what other people do, I just don’t want them to mess up what freedom we have left here in the USA.

                  2. “Its not xenophobia because I don’t hate these people. ”

                    Xenophobia means, literally, fear of strangers, particularly an irrational fear. Even if you don’t hate them, I do think you are afraid of the swarthy brown hordes coming to ‘invade’ the (supposedly) pure lily white American homeland.

                    “I think we have too many people in the USA.”

                    By what measure?

                    1. xen?o?pho?bi?a
                      noun: xenophobia
                      intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries.

                      1) I don’t “dislike” people from other countries nor do I hate them
                      2) I don’t fear people from other countries
                      3) Immigrants coming here and voting to dismantled what freedoms we have left, is not irrational as demographics show it has been happening for decades.

                      I am not white. So what else you got?
                      You lefties wrongly assume that only white people are for limiting immigration.

          2. There’s this thing called a slippery slope fallacy.

            The EO in question isn’t unconstitutional and it doesn’t violate anyone’s First Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment rights. If it did, I would oppose it. I opposed the first version of the order for exactly that reason. But opposing this order for violating the Constitution–even though it doesn’t violate the Constitution is wrong. Save your criticism of things for being unconstitutional for when they’re actually unconstitutional. Ever hear the story about the boy who cried wolf?

            And that’s a real danger here–we don’t want to wear that argument out. Telling average people that we can’t even screen out terrorists because of the First Amendment doesn’t reaffirm their support for tolerance; it just makes them resent the First Amendment–especially when the executive order in question in no way violates the First Amendment.

            1. Ken, I am not specifically arguing that this EO is unconstitutional. I don’t know if it is or it isn’t. But that is besides the point for this particular discussion. You mentioned that you thought refugees should be “extremely vetted”. Okay, fine. We can agree on that. But it’s plainly clear from Trump’s own statements that he wants more than that. From Trump’s own mouth, he wants to ban Muslims entirely. But he (or his advisors anyway) know that isn’t going to fly legally. So I am arguing that what he is trying to do is to make the vetting so ridiculously impossible that it is an effective Muslim ban in all but name only. Or, as Stormy alluded to, perhaps just drag out the deliberation process on what constitutes “extreme enough” vetting that the “temporary” ban stays in place forever. Both strategies are just end-runs around a Muslim ban. And he should be called out on his bullshit, not given the benefit of the doubt.

              1. So I am arguing that what he is trying to do is to make the vetting so ridiculously impossible that it is an effective Muslim ban in all but name only.

                Seems like a pretty ineffective Muslim ban to me, since the countries involved contain a small minority of the world’s Muslims.

                1. The directive to implement more extreme-y extreme vetting is not limited to those 6 nations.

                  1. Good! The USA should extremely vet everyone who wants to come here.

                    You think that everyone should have some right to come to the USA and we should bend over backwards to get them here.

                    That is why you and the lefties are losing in discussions and at the polls. Americans are sick of being taken advantage of.

                    1. “Good! The USA should extremely vet everyone who wants to come here.”

                      When it comes to refugees, the USA already does extremely vet everyone who wants to come here.

                      What Trump wants is not “extreme vetting”, but “impossible vetting”. Vetting so hard that no one gets through. Oh and it’s just applied to Muslims!

                    2. You mean he would erect barriers that Muslims would have a harder time passing? Oh my goodness, our society will become increasingly fractious and violent if we don’t have a steady flow of Muslims moving here. This is not good!

                    3. Your definition of “extreme vetting” is not the same as mine.

                      If you didn’t act, talk and try to be American when you applied to come to the USA, you would not be allowed. These refugees don’t even try to be American.

                      You know another great way to act American- fight for your homeland rather than flee it.

                    4. Chem,
                      Its not just people from Muslim countries. I don’t want a bunch of white European socialists coming here either.

                      A large portion of current refugee and immigrant pool are not freedom loving, free speech having, gun right supporting, no shit taking American-wannabees.

                      Instead we get people who want stone age religious requirements, think hate speech should not be protected like any other speech, vote Democrat, want to bring all their other relatives here, are okay with a Nanny-State, are okay with a welfare state, etc.

        2. Because undermining the USA is what the left does best.

          I always ask, why does the USA have to take in so many people? We have 330M people and we try and work well with our neighbors- Canada and Mexico. Why do we know have to take in people from shit holes across the globe who do not like Americans generally, do not want to assimilate in Libertarian ways, and will not fight for their homeland?

          1. Is the answer, because Hitler was white?

    3. It was never about improving vetting procedures. That was just an excuse for a travel ban that was going to last his whole administration. Every 90 days, he’d announce they were still working on improving vetting procedures and extend the “temporary” ban another 90 days.

      1. It’s amazing. You don’t even need to cite his campaign rhetoric or his tweets for that–you can just pull that out of thin air!

        1. No, I can pull that out of the fact that vetting procedures have not actually been improved.

          1. Because the lefty courts are fighting the EO instead of declaring the relevant immigration laws unconstitutional. They know that would allow Trump to deny anyone entry because there would be less immigration laws to allow entry in the first place.

      2. That is my hunch too.

        1. How surprising.

      3. Even if he does, so what?

        Congress makes the laws and the President enforces those laws as he sees fit.

        Get Congress to change the law. See the courts are supposed to deem the law constitution or unconstitutional but they have not. The courts are only seeking to stop enforcement of the law.

    4. Why does Trump need to ban any travel from anyone at all in order to improve vetting procedures?

      Because it’s not possible to vet people from certain hellholes where the government in question can’t or won’t implement the record keeping practices that allows an immigrant to be vetted in the first place.

  2. According to the order itself, the 90-day ban on travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries…

    I think I see Trump’s problem. He shouldn’t have used the term “Muslim” when crafting the ban. But, yes, his deficient attention span must trickle down to all his underlings. Find yourself a good Muslim Ban Tsar and put him to work.

    1. “”””He shouldn’t have used the term “Muslim” when crafting the ban.”””‘

      As far as I understand he did not use Muslim when crafting the ban

      He used it during the campaign and that is what these Judges are using, not the actual ban order.

      1. Remember the time the courts said that Obama’s individual mandate penaltax was illegitimate because he repeatedly stated that it wasn’t a tax on the campaign trail? Because I don’t.

  3. Foot dragging? He said he needed 90 days and got 9 before the ridiculously overbroad Watson order.

    1. The Judicial and Executive branches only work together when there is socialism to further. We saw 8 years of that.

  4. But most of these court rulings have been based on bad faith reasoning based on what Trump said he would like to do rather than what the order actually does. The 9th Circuit ruling seems to be the first one thst has taken a different tack, but I am not sure it is any better. The idea that Trump is “free” to change the rules is belied by the almost certainty that there will be suits filed against it when it would come out. Whether the rulings will be based on law or on the partisan affiliations of the judges is by no means certain given what has been happening.

    1. The other orders took into consideration Trump’s campaign rhetoric rather than just the text of the order.

      According to Ars Technica, this order cited Trump’s tweets.

      “Indeed, the President recently confirmed his assessment that it is the ‘countries’ that are inherently dangerous, rather than the 180 million individual nationals of those countries who are barred from entry under the President’s travel ban,” the court wrote, citing one of Trump’s June 6 tweets.”


      Incidentally, it’s the fact that Syria (the country) has been compromised by ISIS that makes accepting refugees from there so dangerous.

  5. Question: Immediately after Trump announced the “ban”, if some friendly AG in a conservative district in Texas intentionally challenged the ban knowing it would be adjudicated in a “friendly” district court, and if that court ruled that the ban was kosher….. would that ruling have to be accepted as precedent and the law of the land?

    1. I believe (I’m not a lawyer): You would end up with conflicting rulings (a liberal AG would still be able to file). It would then be up to the SCOTUS to resolve.

      1. Then why doesn’t some friendly AG just do it so they can at least have a dissenting decision to push it along?

        1. Career killer? Don’t really know but I could see a career AG with political ambitions beyond right now, not wanting to get in bed with the Trump/Putin(sarc) admin. They can just wait until the Trump admin appeals directly to the supreme court without getting involved.

        2. You’d have to be very friendly, and if we’re talking the January EO, you’d be staking your career on an ill-conceived executive order.

          1. The EO is constitutional and not ill-conceived.

            Any EO limiting immigrants that the left wants would be fought. Its a war of demographics.

            1. The nasty left made them revoke certain provisions and eventually rewrite the EO, right?

              1. Thats not what courts are supposed to do. Courts are supposed to declare EO and the underlying immigration laws unconstitutional.

                The lefty courts cannot do this because that would eliminate the underlying statutes allowing immigrants to enter the USA.

                This is why the SCOTUS will soon take these immigration cases and settle that Congress make laws about immigration and the Constitution authorizes the Executive Branch to execute those laws as he sees fit.

            2. “Its a war of demographics.”

              We can’t have those brown breeders coming here and displacing the good white folks!

              1. We all know that you really mean IT IS A WAR OF DEMOGRAPHICS.

                You are just fine with using brown people. The left used to use black people for that purpose but that exploded in their face by 1865.

    2. Part of the travesty is the district court judge apparently being able to issue rulings with nationwide impact, rather than just inside their own districts.

  6. It’s them damn immigrants that are infiltrating the government and blocking the implementation of Trump’s Xtreem Vetting?!!!

    1. As long as your willing to admit that.

    2. The Muslims are calling from inside the White House!

      1. They were but Obama left 6 months ago.

  7. The appeals court ruled that Trump’s executive order exceeded his statutory authority because he did not make an evidence-based determination that admitting the people he wants to exclude would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”
    As usual, lefty elements in the government are against the Executive carrying out the law that Congress enacted if it goes against FEELZ. Congress makes the laws, the President enforces those laws and the judiciary determines if the laws are constitutional. Here we have immigration law that Congress passed, the President trying to enforce the law as he sees fit and the judiciary blocking the enforcement but not declaring the law unconstitutional.

    This is the 9th Circuit, the most reversed circuit and clearly only concerned about furthering leftist agendas rather than immigration law.

  8. How would he enact extreme vetting when the courts keep, incorrectly, ruling it is illegal?

    1. Fortunately, Jacob Sullum at Reason wrote a blog post explaining the difference. See here.

      1. Except he didn’t explain how the Executive is supposed to execute the law that Congress enacted when the courts keep undermining how the laws are carried out and not declaring the founding immigration laws unconstitutional.

        The courts cannot declare the fundamental immigration laws unconstitutional because that would allow Trump to deny any immigrate entry into the USA.

  9. According to President Trump, we’ve already implemented the extreme vetting.
    Tweet from June 5th: “In any event we are EXTREME VETTING people coming into the U.S. in order to help keep our country safe. The courts are slow and political!”

    Islam is a political system, NOT a religion, and unless and until humanity wakes the hell up and STOPS referring to it as a religion, there is no hope. Islam is a hyper-aggressive, militaristic, expansionist, totalitarian political system designed to create a super-rich micro-oligarchical ruling class with a massive, destitute, genetically handicapped underclass below.
    Here is a quote from Osama bin Laden that sums it all up:
    “Our talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them ultimately revolve around one issue; one that demands our total support, with power and determination, with one voice, and it is: Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes. There are only three choices in Islam: [1] either willing submission [conversion]; or [2] payment of the jizya, through physical, though not spiritual, submission to the authority of Islam; or [3] the sword, for it is not right to let him [an infidel] live. The matter is summed up for every person alive: Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die.”
    ?Osama Bin Laden
    (The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 42)

    1. Well, you can pour maple syrup on a puddle of bloody, diarrhetic hogshit all you want, but it will never, ever be pancakes.
      THIS is how the musloid problem should be faced and solved. It isn’t difficult.

      Use the only thing they understand ? PHYSICAL FORCE AND STRENGTH.

      Aggressively proselytize. Fully acknowledge that even a converted musloid, like a domesticated wild animal, will be dangerous for the rest of his life and can never be fully trusted.


  11. Actually the judges are not putting the country at risk. The administration has had more than the original 90 days it sought to overhaul the “vetting procedures” To date, they have done nothing which could lead responable people to conclude that the vetting overhaul was never the purpose of the ban.

  12. What he SHOULD do is to take a copy of the COnstitution, open it when he is addressing the Congress, courts, American people, as appropriate, and READ article 3 Sec 2 Paragraph 2… where it declares that any matter involving a State, or several States, OR involving “ministers of the public trust” (meaning, presidents, congressmen, ambassadors, cabinet heads, etc) can ONLY be taken up by SCOTUS, and then ONLY on original jurisdiction. Then declare that since these cases involve states as plaintiffs, and himself, POTUS, as defendant/respondent, all those lower court “rulings” and “opinions” are null and void, of no effect, and WILL be ignored. Then let the lawyers get busy and draft a matter to bring it before SCOTUS, if they want to. Only until THEY rule will it maybe get decided.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.