Especially this Tweet:
Do you consider it appropriate for a President to denigrate a federal judge by referring to him as “this so-called judge” when the judge has merely issued an TRO entirely within his powers? (Is Trump just too much of an idiot to understand that one of the fastest ways to get clobbered in court is to publicly hurl personal insults at judges?)
Do you agree that the Temporary Restraining Order granted by Judge Robart “essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country”? Is that even an intelligible assertion?
FYI: Judge Robart issued the TRO on the basis of the established standard by which he found (a) that the states (Washington and Minnesota) were likely to succeed on the merits of the claims that would entitle them to relief; (b) that the states were likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (c) that the balance of equities favor the states; and (d) and that the TRO is in the public interest.
The states allege 10 causes of action, including (inter alia) violations of Fifth Amendment Equal Protection rights and First Amendment Establishment Clause rights of the non-citizen immigrants and guest workers of these states; violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A), which is part of the Hart-Cellars Act of 1964 prohibiting discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas on the basis of race, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence; and violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158 and 1231(b)(3), which entitles certain non-citizens arriving at the States’ ports of entry to apply for asylum and withholding of removal.
The states' argument that the EO violates the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause goes thus:
First among the “statements made by Defendants concerning their intent and application, [which] target individuals for discriminatory treatment based on their country of origin and/or religion,” noted in paragraph 64, the states cite in paragraph 43 Trump's December 7, 2015 press release calling for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”
This argument might or might not have been one of those that persuaded Judge Robart that the states were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that Trump's EO is unconstitutional, but I haven't seen where anyone (especially Trump) has argued to the contrary. According to Trump's own statements, his intent was clearly to target individuals for discriminatory treatment, not because he or anyone else determined them to be a threat to national interests, but because of their national origin and/or religion, which violates the Equal Protection component of Due Process.
The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!
Do you consider it appropriate for a President to denigrate a federal judge by referring to him as “this so-called judge” when the judge has merely issued an TRO entirely within his powers? (Is Trump just too much of an idiot to understand that one of the fastest ways to get clobbered in court is to publicly hurl personal insults at judges?)
Do you agree that the Temporary Restraining Order granted by Judge Robart “essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country”? Is that even an intelligible assertion?
FYI: Judge Robart issued the TRO on the basis of the established standard by which he found (a) that the states (Washington and Minnesota) were likely to succeed on the merits of the claims that would entitle them to relief; (b) that the states were likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (c) that the balance of equities favor the states; and (d) and that the TRO is in the public interest.
The states allege 10 causes of action, including (inter alia) violations of Fifth Amendment Equal Protection rights and First Amendment Establishment Clause rights of the non-citizen immigrants and guest workers of these states; violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A), which is part of the Hart-Cellars Act of 1964 prohibiting discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas on the basis of race, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence; and violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158 and 1231(b)(3), which entitles certain non-citizens arriving at the States’ ports of entry to apply for asylum and withholding of removal.
The states' argument that the EO violates the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause goes thus:
63. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal government from denying equal protection of the laws.
64. Sections 3 and 5 of the Executive Order, together with statements made by Defendants concerning their intent and application, target individuals for discriminatory treatment based on their country of origin and/or religion, without lawful justification.
65. The Executive Order was motivated by animus and a desire to harm a particular group.
66. The discriminatory terms and application of the Executive Order are arbitrary and cannot be sufficiently justified by federal interests.
67. Through their actions above, Defendants have violated the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment.
68. Defendants’ violation causes ongoing harm to the States and their residents.
64. Sections 3 and 5 of the Executive Order, together with statements made by Defendants concerning their intent and application, target individuals for discriminatory treatment based on their country of origin and/or religion, without lawful justification.
65. The Executive Order was motivated by animus and a desire to harm a particular group.
66. The discriminatory terms and application of the Executive Order are arbitrary and cannot be sufficiently justified by federal interests.
67. Through their actions above, Defendants have violated the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment.
68. Defendants’ violation causes ongoing harm to the States and their residents.
First among the “statements made by Defendants concerning their intent and application, [which] target individuals for discriminatory treatment based on their country of origin and/or religion,” noted in paragraph 64, the states cite in paragraph 43 Trump's December 7, 2015 press release calling for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”
This argument might or might not have been one of those that persuaded Judge Robart that the states were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that Trump's EO is unconstitutional, but I haven't seen where anyone (especially Trump) has argued to the contrary. According to Trump's own statements, his intent was clearly to target individuals for discriminatory treatment, not because he or anyone else determined them to be a threat to national interests, but because of their national origin and/or religion, which violates the Equal Protection component of Due Process.
