TRUMP’S NEW TRAVEL BAN IS AS CONVOLUTED AS THE PREVIOUS ONE

As he had ‘amply indicated’ while reacting after the terror attack on London Tube or the city’s rapid transit system on September 15, he is now there, well in advance, with new and ‘tougher’ version of his government’s favourite but highly controversial policy decision.

Trump, though had denounced the terror attack and the attackers, he made his intentions clear when he went on defaming the London Police for being inactive and made a pitch for his government’s controversial travel ban plan that puts restrictions on migrants and refugees from some Muslim majority nations.

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
The travel ban into the United States should be far larger, tougher and more specific-but stupidly, that would not be politically correct!
4:24 PM – Sep 15, 2017

Unlike its previous version, Donald Trump’s new travel ban will now target two more countries – Iran, Somalia, Syria, Yemen and Libya are the old targets with new addition of Chad, North Korea and Venezuela while Sudan’s name has been struck off – and the new, tougher measures will come into effect from October 18.

Chad is again a Muslim country so the number of Muslim countries hasn’t come down from the previous tally of six.

The addition of North Korea and Venezuela have both possibilities.

The US North Korea relations have hit bottom with both countries threatening to wipe out each other. That may be a reason to put North Koreans under travel ban restrictions.

But how many North Koreans really travel to America? The US has no diplomatic relation with North Korea, no embassy, no consulate and the number of travellers between the countries are negligible.

Most North Koreans who end up in the US are those victims who somehow escape its brutal regime and concentration camps. The Trump Administration, in the zeal of its misplaced priorities, is now going to block them.

And Venezuela! The decision to include Venezuela can be termed a political one based on ideological differences. True, Venezuela is going through a phase of unrest with a communist dictator overtaking the country but then Venezuela is not going to be the first dictatorship or communist country the US would snap ties with. China is the biggest example of this dichotomy. The communist dictatorship is the largest trade partner of the US.

That leaves us to the natural conclusion then that the inclusion of North Korea and Venezuela in Trump’s scheme of things is just a cosmetic measure that falsely believes that doing so would convince the US courts and opponents – that the refurbished travel ban is aimed at broadening the travel ban from being exclusively anti-Muslim to anti-terrorism.

But the very inclusion of these two countries raises serious questions that it is again a convoluted version of a convoluted document that owes its origin to a convoluted thought process.

Donald Trump’s travel ban plan has always been controversial, right from its first introduction in January.

Following ban by various federal courts, the Trump administration was forced to dilute it but even the diluted version was rejected. It was finally given a go ahead by the US Supreme Court on June 26.

Accordingly, the travel ban plan that expired on September 24 targeted people from six Muslim majority nations for 90 days, i.e., Syria, Libya, Sudan, Iran, Yemen and Somalia. It also put restrictions on all refugees for 120 days that is set to expire on October 24. The next Supreme Court hearing, which will deliberate on the legality of the travel ban plan, is set for October 10.

©SantoshChaubey

TRUMP’S RESPONSE ON LONDON ATTACK INDICATES HE IS GOING TO PITCH FOR EXTENDING HIS TRAVEL BAN

The article originally appeared on India Today.

US President Donald Trump sees opportunity in every development to sell his government’s decisions it seems. And the opportunity for him this time came after an attack on London Tube, the city’s urban transit system which the London Police is treating as terror attack. The fifth terror attack on London this year was carried out by a homemade bomb that left some travellers with facial burns.

Trump, though denounced the terror attack and the attackers, made his intentions clear when he went on defaming the London Police for being inactive and made a pitch for his government’s controversial travel ban plan that puts restrictions on migrants and refugees from some Muslim majority nations.

Trump’s reaction on the latest terror strike on London came in a series of tweets where he termed terrorists as losers and emphasised on the need to cut off and better regulate internet, their main recruitment tool.

Then he went on to make his sales pitch. Making a case for his travel ban plan, that is going to expire in October, Trump said that “the travel ban into the United States should be far larger, tougher and more specific – but stupidly, that would not be politically correct!”

His government’s travel ban plan has always been controversial, right from its first introduction in January. Following ban by various federal courts, the Trump administration was forced to dilute it but even the diluted version was rejected. The travel ban plan that targeted people from six Muslim majority nations for 90 days, i.e., Syria, Libya, Sudan, Iran, Yemen and Somalia and all refugees for 120 days, was finally given a go ahead by the US Supreme Court on June 26.

That means Trump’s travel ban on the people of these six Muslim nations is set to expire on September 23 and his refugee ban on October 23. The next Supreme Court hearing, which will deliberate on the legality of the travel ban plan, is set for October 10.

And if Trump’s words are any indication, his administration may be planning to pitch for continuation of travel ban and its next version may be even tougher, free of the concerns of being politically correct.

After the London Bridge terror attack on June 3 that had left seven dead and dozens injured, Trump, while slamming, the re-drafted version of his administration’s travel ban order as an attempt to be “politically correct”, had commented that “the US Justice Department should have stayed with the original travel ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to the US Supreme Court and the Justice Department should ask for an expedited hearing of the watered down travel ban before the Supreme Court – and seek much tougher version.”

Comparing his government’s track record against the ISIS with his predecessor Barack Obama’s government, Trump says that “they have made more progress in the last nine months against the ISIS than the Obama Administration had made in eight years” and goes on to add that “the US must be proactive and nasty” in dealing with terrorists.

Trump would certainly by buoyed by the September 12 decision of the US Supreme Court in favour of his government’s travel ban plan where the apex court blocked a federal court’s decision to allow some 24,000 refugees with a resettlement agency contract who, otherwise, would have been allowed into the United States in October.

©SantoshChaubey

US SUPREME COURT ALLOWS TRAVEL BAN: IS DONALD TRUMP’S NEIL GORSUCH GAMBLE GOING TO PAY?

The article originally appeared on India Today.

The US Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to President Donald Trump by allowing his temporary bans on travelers from six Muslim-majority countries and all refugees to go into effect for people with no connection to the United States while agreeing to hear his appeals in the closely watched legal fight.

The Trump administration had issued two versions of Donald Trump’s controversial executive order on travel ban, first on January 27 and then on March 6 but the federal courts expressed their strong reservations against the discriminatory nature of the order saying that they were in bad taste and were targeted against the Muslim community.

The US Supreme Court has accepted the emergency appeal by the Trump administration allowing travel ban on people from six Muslim majority nations for 90 days, i.e., Syria, Libya, Sudan, Iran, Yemen and Somalia and all refugees for 120 days “who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States” while the federal courts had completely blocked it.

DONALD TRUMP’S NEIL GORSUCH GAMBLE

Nominating judges in the US courts has always been the prerogative of the US President and his party. Trump wanted appellate judge Neil Gorsuch, a conservative, to fill the lone vacancy in the US Supreme Court. And with Gorsuch’s approval in April, after a long and bitterly fought confirmation process, Trump had what he wanted.

“Trump had vowed to choose ideologues in the mould of the late Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative icon – a prospect that had activists on the right giddy,” a Washington Post report had said. Antonin Scalia, a Ronald Reagan appointee to the US Supreme Court, was seen as a legal luminary but with a conservative mindset who vocally opposed gay rights and abortion.
Scalia’s death last year had given Trump’s predecessor Barack Obama an opportunity to tilt the 5-4 conservative majority in the US Supreme Court in favour of a 5-4 liberal majority but the Senate Republicans didn’t allow Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland, a liberal.

TRUMP SEEKS AN EXPEDITED HEARING IN THE SUPREME COURT

After the London Bridge terror attack on June 3 that left seven dead and dozens injured, Trump, while slamming, the re-drafted version of his administration’s travel ban order as an attempt to be “politically correct”, commented that “the US Justice Department should have stayed with the original travel ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to the US Supreme Court and the Justice Department should ask for an expedited hearing of the watered down travel ban before the Supreme Court – and seek much tougher version.”

Before that, on June 1, the Trump administration had filed an emergency application in the US Supreme Court requesting temporary revival of the travel ban plan. And for the moment, the US Supreme Court decision seems to have given what Trump had wanted from the US judiciary, a favourable decision for his orders that are challenged.

There has always been this line of thought in the US that Trump wanted to have a conservative majority in the US Supreme Court so that he could push his agenda and one can always raise the question that the US Supreme Court could have expedited the hearing without altering the ban put in place by so many US courts. A US Judiciary with more conservative judges is likely to have a favourable view of Trump administration’s conservative policies like travel ban or stopping funds to the NGOs working for abortion.

A more ‘likeminded and amenable judiciary’ can be a great help, especially when the US under Trump is witnessing a flurry of lawsuits against his decisions that his rivals see as controversial. That is bound to happen as Trump’s victory has bitterly divided America and he took oath with historically low approval ratings amid nationwide protests.

Trump was always more than ready to move to the US Supreme Court on his travel ban plans where he expected a respite there with a 5-4 conservative majority with Neil Gorsuch’s approval. And with this respite, his administration may now work out his plans pushing for a much tougher version of travel ban as he has sought.

©SantoshChaubey

“WATERED DOWN”? THAT’S WHAT DONALD TRUMP NOW THINKS ABOUT HIS OWN ADMINISTRATION’S TRAVEL BAN PLAN

It seems US President Donald Trump has just got up from a deep slumber of three months to realize that the reworked Travel Ban plan that bears his signature has been watered down to the extent that it is worthless and its original and a much tougher version is needed to be restored. Donald Trump had signed the “watered down” version on March 6. And like his earlier attempt to enforce a nation-wide travel ban plan targeting a particular community, this, too, was stayed by the US courts.

After the London Bridge terror attack on June 3 that left seven dead and dozens injured, Trump has slammed the re-drafted version of his administration’s Travel Ban order an attempt to be “politically correct”, in a series of tweets, he has said that “the US Justice Department should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to the US Supreme Court and the Justice Department should ask for an expedited hearing of the watered down Travel Ban before the Supreme Court – and seek much tougher version!”

It raises a pertinent question then – why Donald Trump allowed this watered down version to go through? Did he not study it before putting his signature or was he convinced that the modified version of Travel Ban kept his idea of travel ban intact, as the US courts later concluded?

On March 15, a Hawaii court blocked the Trump Administration’s second attempt to reintroduce the controversial Travel Ban plan saying it was biased and discriminatory. The ban was upheld by a Circuit Court of Appeals on May 25. Trump had signed the new executive order on March 6, weeks after the first futile attempt to ban immigration from some Muslim majority countries.

In the new executive order on Travel Ban, that, according to Trump is a watered down and politically correct version, three months after he signed it, the Trump administration had made some minor changes to the first version of the executive order which was issued on January 27 so that it could evade the courts. For example, the second order excluded Iraq from the list of countries facing the ban, i.e., Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Sudan, and featured exemptions for green card holders, permanent US residents and for those already having a US visa.

But the courts weren’t satisfied. Comparing both versions of the Travel Ban executive order, the judge of the Hawaii found “significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus driving the promulgation of the executive order and its related predecessor.”

Trump had termed the decision of the Hawaii court an “unprecedented judicial overreach.” When his first Travel Ban executive order was stayed, he had slammed “the opinion of the so-called judge which essentially took law-enforcement away from their country” and claimed that the “decision was ridiculous and would be overturned!” He has continued his tirade against the US judiciary which he finds is rigged and compares it with that of the third world countries.

While alleging the courts to be “slow and political”, he claims that in order to help keep the US safe, his administration is “extreme vetting” people coming into the U.S.

©SantoshChaubey

#THETRUMPDUMP: JUDICIAL OVERREACH OR TRUMP’S OVERREACH – AMISTAD LESSONS

US President Donald Trump thinks the US Judiciary is like that of the third world countries, a term that is derogatory and its use is not recommended. By doing so Donald Trump tries to stereotype a large section of the world as well as his own Judiciary, a marvel of humanity that is appreciated across the world.

Steven Spielberg’s 1997 film Amistad, based on the plight of African slaves on board ship Amistad in 1839, who were subject to intense court proceedings and social debate on slavery in America after they had mutinied and killed their captors, has two very moving scenes about independence and fine jurisprudence of the US Judicial system.

First, the then US President Martin Van Buren (1837-1841), under the pressure of pro-slavery southern US states and Spain, gets the judge of the US lower court replaced sensing that the presiding judge would rule against the slave traders and the US government, as the evidence demanded. Buren’s administration replaces him with a young judge expecting a favourable decision from him as the young judge would have his whole career before him and he would not go against the state. But, on the contrary, judicial wisdom and human conscience decides what the young judge would do – the just thing – and he rules against the slave traders and the US government – even if he knows that it will hurt his future career opportunities.

In the final scene of the film, we come across a fine closing argument in the case of the Amistad Africans in the US Supreme Court by John Quincy Adams, former US President (1825-1829) and the senior attorney here. Incidentally, under the pressure of the Southern states and Spain, the US government moves to the US Supreme Court. Though Adams never openly admitted that he was an abolitionist, he, in fact, was and agreed to defend the cause of the Amistad Africans in the US Supreme Court. As the film’s script goes, in support of his arguments, Adams reminds the judges of the US Supreme Court that the Queen of Spain, in official communication with the US, again and again, refers to the incompetent US Courts, comparing with the courts in her country that do what the state demands, something that Adams terms ‘as she plays with her own courts’ in a magical kingdom called Spain. Seven of the nine US Supreme Court judges were themselves southern slave owners. Adams invoked the US Declaration of Independence, freedom and equality of man and the previous US Presidents who fought for these values in his speech. The case was weak technically, apart from the ill-intent of the US administration. Add to it the impeccable defense mounted by John Quincy Adams. But a fear was lingering in everyone’s mind – that majority of the judges were slave masters – a fact that could have easily overturned the decision of the lower court in favour of the US administration and Spain. But like the lower court, the spirit of the US Judicial wisdom prevailed. With just one dissent, the US Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Amistad Africans.

That was 1840s. The film is more or less a true account of one of the most important episodes in the history that propelled the anti-slavery movement in the US to its final fight that resulted in Abraham Lincoln’s Thirteenth Amendment (January 31, 1865) that made slavery illegal thought the US, including the southern states.

Now if someone like a US President feels that the level of that judiciary, that showed a true judicial independence based on the rule of law some 200 years ago, is like of those countries where the judicial independence and integrity are easily compromised, then we can easily assume that the person saying such absurd things has other designs.

This Amistad spirit is alive and kicking in the US Judiciary is evident from the fact that both versions of Trump’s controversial travel ban, that target Muslims and immigrants, were turned down by the US Courts. Donald Trump was always livid over the US Judiciary. And the fact that he drew this the third world’ corollary during his campaign phase, before becoming the US President, tells us that he has designs against the US Judiciary. He would have been advised by his inner circle to pre-empt his moves and to take on the US Judiciary as the Judiciary was expected to play spoilsport in his bizarre policy moves like this travel ban travesty.

Though Donald Trump has said of moving to the US Supreme Court against the ban on his ‘travel ban’, hoping that the 5-4 conservative majority in the top US Court would help him with his Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch confirmed, the US Judicial history tells us otherwise, as evident from the Amistad example where six of the slave owing judges ruled against slavery. Neil Gorsuch and a conservative majority over the liberal judges may not work for Trump. Martin Van Buren says in Amistad, replying to the representative of Spain’s queen, that it is the it is the ‘independence of the US courts that keeps the people of the US free’.

©SantoshChaubey

DONALD TRUMP’S NEW TRAVEL BAN TOO IN COURT’S FIRING LINE

The article originally appeared on India Today.

A new travel ban is set to come into force from March 16, if it goes as intended, without the US courts pitching in. The new Donald Trump executive order was signed on Monday, March 6, after five weeks of the first futile attempt to ban immigration from some Muslim majority countries.

On its part, the Trump administration has gone for all cosmetic changes to its previous version of the executive order issued on January 27 that aimed to put a ban on people from seven Muslim majority countries so that it can evade the courts, like exemptions for green card holders permanent US residents and for those already having a US visa.

But the new travel ban order, that drops Iraq from its list and goes soft on Syrian refugees in terms of the language used, does talk of withholding new visas for 90 days to the people from the six countries, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan and Syria. The new executive order drops Iraq from the list as the Trump administration feels that the new vetting procedure of the prospective travellers adopted by the Iraqi government is promising enough to take care of the US security concerns.

But it seems these cosmetic measures are not enough to save even this new Trump dump from the judicial scrutiny. A federal judge in the US state of Hawaii has allowed the state’s amended petition challenging the new travel ban by the Trump administration. The state of Hawaii had filed a lawsuit against the first executive order on travel ban but a national injunction on the Trump’s travel ban by a Washington court had put an automatic hold on it.

In its amended lawsuit, the state of Hawaii has argued that the new executive order on travel ban doesn’t change much and violates the right to freedom of religion. Also, the state says in its lawsuit, that the travel ban would adversely affect the social fabric and economy of the state by targeting a religion and thus hindering people’s movements in its educational institutions and in the society as a whole, something that is against the US Constitution.

A Hawaii judge has accepted these contentions and is set to hear the lawsuit on March 15, before it comes into effect on March 16. The court has issued notice to the Trump administration to submit its response by March 13.

This Hawaii lawsuit may be the beginning of yet another round of court hearings that may again cloud the Trump administration’s divisive agenda to put a ban on people’s movement from some Muslim majority countries as some other states that had successfully challenged the earlier version of the executive order, including the state of Washington, have said that they are carefully reviewing the new executive order before deciding on their next step. The Hawaii court hearing may give them the reason they need to go ahead with their own lawsuits.

©SantoshChaubey

WHY DONALD TRUMP IS TAKING ON US JUDICIARY

The article originally appeared on India Today.
Here it is bit modified and extended.

US President is disgusted and he letting the world known the root-cause of his anger, the US Judiciary, that has stayed the Trump administration’s controversial travel ban order on people from seven Muslim countries, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Sudan for 90 days. His order also suspended the US refugee programme for 120 days and put an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees.

Trump said he was doing so to prevent entry of terrorists in the US but it seems no one is buying that.

First, the New York District Judge on January 28 had partially stayed Trump’s executive order barring deportations already arrived on the US soil with a valid visa. Then on January 3, the Seattle District Judge, though temporary, put a complete, nationwide stay on the executive order.

How desperate is the Trump administration about its travel ban plans becomes evident from the fact that the US Justice Department approached the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals late in the night, after midnight, against the Seattle District Judge order. But even that court refused to grant Trump administration any immediate respite till the next hearing that is scheduled for today.

Meanwhile, protests again Trump’s executive order spreading nationwide and in many other countries and the number of protesters is swelling, including the corporate America, information-technology companies and some Republican senators like John McCain, Lindsey Graham and more importantly Mitch McConnell, the Majority Leader of the US Senate, who said that in case of an adverse court ruling, the Congress would not help Trump with his travel ban plans.

It has left Trump fuming and he has chosen his favourite platform Twitter to let the world know his anger and he began his onslaught with a ‘MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!’ tweet on February 4 that followed five more tweets on the issue on February 5 and two on February 6. He has continued with his agenda and today tweeted to say that ‘courts must act fast’ on his travel ban order and the day is not over yet. Also, Trump added today that he was ready to go to the Supreme Court to get his travel ban order implemented.

THE HIDDEN AGENDA?

According to a Washington Post report, the Trump administration has inherited 103 judicial vacancies in the federal and district courts from the Obama administration. It is almost double to what Barack Obama had got, 54 vacancies to fill judges of his choice.

What Barack Obama had inherited from his predecessor George Bush was a Republic legacy with majority of Republican nominated judges in 10 of 13 circuit courts as per a USA Today report. It took Barack Obama eight years to replace the Republican choices with Democratic nominees but his progress was halted midway in 2015 when the Republicans took the US Senate control. The Obama administration blamed the Senate Republicans for deliberately obstructing the process.

Nominating judges in the US courts has always been the prerogative of the US President and his party and so being majority of Democrat nominees or Republican nominees is a natural things and we should not look beyond that.

But the perception about Donald Trump changes that normal. The Washington Post report writes that ‘Trump has vowed to choose ideologues in the mold of the late Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative icon — a prospect that has activists on the right giddy’. Antonin Scalia, a Ronald Reagan appointee to the US Supreme Court, was seen as a legal luminary but with a conservative mindset who vocally opposed gay rights and abortion.

Scalia’s death last year had given Obama an opportunity to tilt the 5-4 conservative majority in the US Supreme Court in favour of a 5-4 liberal majority but the Senate Republicans didn’t allow Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland.

And it seems Trump has started giving shape to his plans to reshape the US judiciary. On January 31, Trump nominated appellate judge Neil Gorsuch to fill Scalia’s vacancy. If confirmed, Gorsuch will again tilt the 5-4 majority in favour of the conservatives.

TRAVEL BAN A CHANCE?

The way Trump is criticising the US Judiciary on putting a stay on his travel ban executive order, it seems it can be the beginning of the process to rapidly fill the US Judiciary with more conservative judges who are likely to have a favourable view of Trump’s administration conservative policies like travel ban or stopping funds to the NGOs working for abortion.

Trump thinks the present US Judicial System is like ‘that of a third-world country’ and rigged, a CNN report says, “Folks, we’re living in a third-world country. This has never happened before. This is the lowest point in terms of our judicial system. This is the lowest point in the history of our country. Remember that. And when I talk about a rigged system, let’s see what happens. Let’s see what happens.”

His tweets say it all, his disdain for the US Judiciary. He finds the judges’ decision to put a stay on his executive order ridiculous. He is blaming them to make the US unsafe by allowing terrorists and dangerous people to pour in. It is as if denouncing all the systems that existed in the US before Trump who want to change it all. Probably, this is his way to initiate ‘making America great again’!

And a more ‘likeminded and amenable judiciary’ can be a great help here, especially when the US under Trump is going to see a flurry of lawsuits against Trump’s decisions that his rivals see as controversial. That is bound to happen as Trump’s victory has bitterly divided America and he took oath with historically low approval ratings amid nationwide protests.

Barring few, Republicans who control both Houses of the US Congress, have backed Trump’s travel ban and judges’ adverse views on it may propel them to have more likeminded, conservative judges in the judicial circuits. True that will take some time but then Trump is ready to move to the Supreme Court and he may expect a respite there with a 5-4 conservative majority once Neil Gorsuch is approved.

©SantoshChaubey

TRUMP VS JUDICIARY

US President is disgusted and he letting the world known the root-cause of his anger, the US Judiciary, that has stayed the Trump administration’s controversial travel ban order on people from seven Muslim countries, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Sudan for 90 days. His order also suspended the US refugee programme for 120 days and put an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees.

Trump said he was doing so to prevent entry of terrorists in the US but it seems no one is buying that.

First, the New York District Judge on January 28 had partially stayed Trump’s executive order barring deportations already arrived on the US soil with a valid visa. Then on January 3, the Seattle District Judge, though temporary, put a complete, nationwide stay on the executive order.

How desperate is the Trump administration about its travel ban plans becomes evident from the fact that the US Justice Department approached the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals late in the night, after midnight, against the Seattle District Judge order. But even that court refused to grant Trump administration any immediate respite.

So, now the law will take its own course. Both sides will be asked to present their sides and then the court will arrive at a decision, a decision, that again, can be challenged in higher courts. Meanwhile, protests again Trump’s executive order spreading nationwide and in many other countries and the number of protesters is swelling, including the corporate America and the Republican senators like John McCain, Lindsey Graham and more importantly Mitch McConnell, the Majority Leader of the US Senate, who said that in case of an adverse court ruling, the Congress would not help Trump with his travel ban plans.

It has left Trump fuming and he has chosen his favourite platform Twitter to let the world know his anger and he began his onslaught with a ‘MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!’ tweet on February 4 that followed five more tweets on the issue the next day and two more today and the day is not over yet.

‏@realDonaldTrump
I have instructed Homeland Security to check people coming into our country VERY CAREFULLY. The courts are making the job very difficult!
2:12 AM – 6 Feb 2017

‏@realDonaldTrump
Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!
2:09 AM – 6 Feb 2017

‏@realDonaldTrump
The judge opens up our country to potential terrorists and others that do not have our best interests at heart. Bad people are very happy!
6:18 AM – 5 Feb 2017

‏@realDonaldTrump
What is our country coming to when a judge can halt a Homeland Security travel ban and anyone, even with bad intentions, can come into U.S.?
2:14 AM – 5 Feb 2017

‏@realDonaldTrump
Why aren’t the lawyers looking at and using the Federal Court decision in Boston, which is at conflict with ridiculous lift ban decision?
5:07 AM – 5 Feb 2017

‏@realDonaldTrump
Because the ban was lifted by a judge, many very bad and dangerous people may be pouring into our country. A terrible decision
3:14 AM – 5 Feb 2017

‏@realDonaldTrump
What is our country coming to when a judge can halt a Homeland Security travel ban and anyone, even with bad intentions, can come into U.S.?
2:14 AM – 5 Feb 2017

‏@realDonaldTrump
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
7:56 PM – 4 Feb 2017

His tweets say it all, his disdain for the US Judiciary. He finds the judges’ decision to put a stay on his executive order ridiculous. He is blaming them to make the US unsafe by allowing terrorists and dangerous people to pour in. It is as if denouncing all the systems that existed in the US before Trump who want to change it all.  Probably, this is his way to initiate ‘making America great again’!

©SantoshChaubey