The Jury Talks Back


Trump: This Stupid President Should Have Issued a Better Travel Ban

Filed under: Uncategorized — Patterico @ 7:30 am

Donald Trump took to Twitter this morning to complain about the U.S. President’s travel ban, which Trump said doesn’t go far enough.

If Trump feels this strongly about the matter, he should take his concerns to the President of the United States, who has the power to issue a larger, tougher, more specific ban.

I believe Trump has an unprecedented access to the man holding that office.

He can tell the President that the lower courts may be skeptical, but the Supreme Court has let the smaller, less tough, less specific ban remain in place for the most part. So why not do what you actually think is right? he should say.

In fact, Trump should march right into the Oval Office and say: Look here, Mr. President —

[This is the point at which Graham Chapman, dressed as a British army colonel, stands up and shouts: No, this is silly. The whole premise is silly and it’s very badly written!]

So let’s end the ironic tone, as I can’t really take it any further anyway.

Why is this guy acting like he’s not the President?

When you complain about something, but do nothing when you have the power to do so, some might conclude you don’t want to do it. For example: Republicans hilariously voted for ObamaCare repeal during Barack Obama’s presidency. But we now know that they never really wanted repeal. How do we know? Because they now have the power to pass that repeal, and they didn’t do it.

Trump has the power to issue a larger, tougher, more specific ban. (After all, the Supreme Court is backing his play on the existing one so far.) Yet he didn’t, for some reason. The logical conclusion is that he didn’t want to.

It’s laughable that he goes on Twitter to complain about his own inaction.

And this bit about political correctness — what is he even saying? Is he saying that he is sacrificing the country’s safety for the sake of political correctness? It’s kind of hard to read the tweet any other way.

After puzzling over this issue all morning for the last thirty seconds, I think I have figured out the problem. I think I know why Trump didn’t issue the more comprehensive travel ban that he says he himself should have issued. The reason is simple, if you think about it.

Chuck and Nancy didn’t go for it.

[Cross-posted at RedState.]


  1. If Trump feels this strongly about the matter, he should take his concerns to the President of the United States, who has the power to issue a larger, tougher, more specific ban.

    He did, and the courts (so far) rejected it, so he tried again with a narrower one. And in fact it was argued by our host at the time that the President did not have the power to issue the first ban, since our host interpreted the law as not allowing the President to make that sort of ban.

    Perhaps on paper the President has authority to issue larger, tougher, more specific bans, but in practice they have to get by the courts, and so I think in practice he doesn’t.

    Comment by Frederick — 9/15/2017 @ 9:40 am

  2. Patterico opines that, “After all, the Supreme Court is backing his play on the existing one so far.” But on July 19, WaPo reported: “The Supreme Court on Wednesday brokered a new compromise over President Trump’s travel ban, saying the government for now may enforce tight restrictions on refugees but also must make it easier for people from six mostly Muslim countries to enter the United States.” That doesn’t sound like SCOTUS backing Trump to me.

    Comment by Andrew — 9/15/2017 @ 10:08 am

  3. Posting the same comment at both sites, Frederick? I’ve done that but I’m curious why you did that with this one.

    Comment by DRJ — 9/15/2017 @ 10:08 am

  4. @DRJ:Posting the same comment at both sites, Frederick? I’ve done that but I’m curious why you did that with this one.

    Not always the same people at each site, and less trollery here than the other.

    Comment by Frederick — 9/15/2017 @ 10:10 am

  5. SCOTUS has lifted the appellate court injunctions of the modified ban, pending a hearing on October 10. That is a win for Trump and the DOJ. SCOTUS hasn’t decided the case yet, hasn’t even heard it, by it did lift the injunctions which indicates the petitioners don’t have a strong likelihood of success (as the appellate courts held).

    Comment by DRJ — 9/15/2017 @ 10:13 am

  6. Have you considered my response regarding why SCOTUS is supporting Trump and/or have you asked Patterico to explain why he said SCOTUS is backing Trump, or is your mind made up?

    Comment by DRJ — 9/15/2017 @ 10:16 am

  7. Andrew, my comment 5 was for you. Spevifically, SCOTUS allowed the injunction to continue regarding some immigrants but not others. For instance, the injunctions continue as to refugees already cleared by Homeland Security. Most of the injunction was lifted and all of it might be after a hearing.

    Comment by DRJ — 9/15/2017 @ 10:21 am

  8. Sorry. The injunction was lifted as to those refugees, not continued. I said the opposite of what I meant.

    Comment by DRJ — 9/15/2017 @ 10:23 am

  9. Frederick,

    I don’t know what you do for a living. My guess is you are an engineer, scientist, or maybe an accountant. I don’t think you are a lawyer but I could certainly be wrong. But if you aren’t a lawyer, isn’t there a chance you might not understand the legal issues and posture? You might be relying on the media and while that is fine, it can still be confusing.

    There was a time when people came to Patterico’s website to try to learn about legal issues. He never cares whether people agree with him but he is interested in helping explain things that he knows like the law. Ask him questions if you are interested.

    Comment by DRJ — 9/15/2017 @ 10:47 am

  10. @DRJ: I read his back-and-forth with Andrew McCarthy of NRO over the first travel ban, back in February. McCarthy and Patterico did not agree on what the law constrained the President from doing.

    Comment by Frederick — 9/15/2017 @ 12:21 pm

  11. That was an interesting discussion, Frederick, but they were talking about how they thought courts should or might rule. It’s still relevant but we have more information now that courts have actually made decisions.

    I think the reason Patterico believes Trump has support for his position in the Supreme Court isn’t a question of whether Patterico thinks the decisions are right or wrong, or what should be based on that initial discussion. I think it’s based on what the actual court decisions (especially the preliminary Supreme Court decisions, signal regarding any future decisions.

    Comment by DRJ — 9/15/2017 @ 2:17 pm

  12. If you are interested in that, please ask him to explain it himself, here or at the main website. Are you interested in any he said that, or are you already sure you understand but think he is wrong?

    Comment by DRJ — 9/15/2017 @ 2:19 pm

  13. … interested in why he said that …I

    Comment by DRJ — 9/15/2017 @ 2:20 pm

  14. There is no doubt that the travel bans went before judges who were nothing more than the alter egos of the liberal Democrat Senators who had blue-slipped them. But that’s no excuse. The Administration was woefully unprepared to defend them in any court. You gotta carry your own water — you can’t count on judges to do it for you.

    Comment by nk — 9/15/2017 @ 5:18 pm

  15. I agree, nk.

    Comment by DRJ — 9/15/2017 @ 5:49 pm

  16. I utterly despise twitter, and doubly so when it comes to public statements on complex matters. I thus loathe Trump’s penchant for tweeting.

    However, on the issue itself, as others have pointed out, Trump did issue a stronger EO, only to have it blocked (on constitutionally dubious grounds).

    My guess is, that’s what Trump meant (and if so, he should have said so). But his wording (which is as much at fault as the medium he chose) certainly opens him up to critiques like Patterico’s.

    Comment by Arizona CJ — 9/15/2017 @ 6:53 pm

  17. It would help to have a strong, comprehensive, well-thought-out travel ban. It would also help if Trump would stop revealing information from our allies about our their terror investigations.

    Comment by DRJ — 9/15/2017 @ 6:54 pm

  18. @ DRJ, I agree that it would help if Trump had a travel ban as you describe. I also think it would help if Trump didn’t incoherently use a medium very ill suited for such things.

    As for the UK, I’m not inclined to blame Trump for the photos from MI6 appearing in the New York times. Some of the other stuff, maybe, but surely not that. As for the current mess, we don’t know that Trump got that info from the UK, or if he had any info at all. And yep (unless he’s using info they gave the US) I agree with him; in a vast majority of UK and EU terror attacks, they are “Known wolves”. As such, what the UK is doing is not working, and thus criticism is warranted. Same with Trump slamming them for the no-go zones they claim do not exist; they do exist, and I know that for a fact because I’ve been in two of them (And this was well before Trump’s comments on them). The police go in rarely and armed (My family is from the UK and I spend a lot of time over there). The UK also has a penchant for coverups, such as Rotheram. On this one, like in some other cases, they need calling out. Loudly. And Trump is nothing if not loud. Sometimes I hate that – but this is one time I’m glad.

    Comment by Arizona CJ — 9/15/2017 @ 9:25 pm

  19. I blame Trump for his tweet that said the “loser terrorist” was “in the sights” of the British police. Trump acknowledged he had been briefed on the attack so it is reasonable to assume he was doing more than speculating based on general knowledge. Plus he undoubtedly has more than general knowledge simply because he is told things everyday as President. So, as you said and I completely agree, he should not use social media because he obviously has no common sense or judgment about the ramifications of what he says.

    But whether or not Trump knew specifics, the terror cell will undoubtedly change plans as a result of his remarks. Thus, whatever knowledge the British may have had has been corrupted.

    Comment by DRJ — 9/16/2017 @ 6:19 am

  20. Should the British comment on how American police let pockets of criminals and possible terrorists live freely in our inner cities?

    Comment by DRJ — 9/16/2017 @ 6:22 am

  21. I get that it’s a problem but I thought MAGA is about staying out of other countries’ business and fixing our own problems.

    Europe has a problem with unassimilated criminal migrants, but I don’t think the way to solve that problem is with Presidential tweets or any public comments. Especially with the British.

    Comment by DRJ — 9/16/2017 @ 6:27 am

  22. @ DRJ,

    I kind of agree with you regarding Trump and twitter, except I’d extend it to all politicians. Heck, many can’t even manage to use e-mail or twitter without committing major felonies. :)

    Regarding the UK, many in the UK, including serving government officials of high rank, routinely comment on all sorts of US internal matters, ranging from the death penalty to immigration to gun control to race relations to Co2 emissions, and even politics (look at some of the things high officials said publicly about Trump in the primaries, and the things they said about Bush, Reagan, etc), which makes it absolutely fine to do the same in return.

    If Trump got his info via a briefing, then I object to him making it public *if* it originated from intel sharing. If not, I have no problem with it, and in fact it might be needful if they were planning on hiding things from the public (which they do all too often.). There sometimes are legitimate reasons to keep things quiet during an investigation, but what I’m talking about is a cover up on an issue that is not internal-only. However, that said, I feel that unless Trump knew for a fact they planned a cover up, he should have kept his mouth shut on the Scotland Yard part.

    And BTW, if the US government was hiding something (sans a legitimate reason) that the public has a right to know, and the UK spilled the beans, I’d say “thank you”.

    Comment by Arizona CJ — 9/16/2017 @ 2:25 pm

  23. I hear you. Twitter is so popular these days that politicians probably need a presence, but they need to do better at using it wisely. Letting a single (probably junior) person handle Twitter is crazy, as my Texas Senator Cruz learned the hard way this week.

    Comment by DRJ — 9/16/2017 @ 2:37 pm

  24. DRJ, I’ve always found it more than a bit worrisome that so many of our politicians have proven unable to handle something that most kids are competent with. :)

    As for Cruz, I’d call that a goof, but a minor one. I was thinking more along the lines of Anthony Weiner, Hillary Clinton, and Debbie Wasserman Shultz as examples of both incompetence on a magnificent scale and outright criminality when it comes to electronic communications.

    Comment by Arizona CJ — 9/16/2017 @ 5:36 pm

  25. It turns out, re the mail that at least the local authorities,were aware of the subject in question, in what context we are not sure but we can reasonably surmise

    Comment by narciso — 9/16/2017 @ 8:26 pm

  26. I bet they were, and also that Trump was told that a and blabbed.

    Comment by DRJ — 9/17/2017 @ 7:23 am


    Comment by narciso — 9/17/2017 @ 12:03 pm

  28. 18. Comment by Arizona CJ — 9/15/2017 @ 9:25 pm

    As for the current mess, we don’t know that Trump got that info from the UK, or if he had any info at all.

    It seems most likely that he gotthe information from Fox News, where a “security expert” appeared about 20 minutes or so before that tweet and said that the terrorist(s) were probably known to Scotland Yard. To put the best face on it, Donald Trump decided to believe him.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 9/18/2017 @ 6:04 am

  29. That makes sense given Trump’s history, but if so then what an idiot we have for a President.

    Comment by DRJ — 9/18/2017 @ 7:53 am

  30. An idiot leading federal government idiots, who didn’t even warn Houston residents (and in fact assured City officials there was no danger) before opening the floodgates that drowned two of their neighbors.

    Katrina all over again. Government immunity needs to end in all tort cases, not just some.

    Comment by DRJ — 9/18/2017 @ 7:56 am

  31. They ought to call it the army corps of demolition,

    Comment by narciso — 9/18/2017 @ 2:20 pm

  32. Well, there is also this thing called “experience”, where we see that the majority of european terrorist incidents involve “known wolves”.

    Comment by SPQR — 9/18/2017 @ 6:38 pm

  33. as it turns out, the subject (unnamed) was referred to a deradicalization program.

    Comment by narciso — 9/20/2017 @ 11:15 am

  34. Yep.

    Comment by SPQR — 9/20/2017 @ 2:35 pm

  35. He beat the Ludovico Technique?

    Comment by nk — 9/20/2017 @ 3:26 pm


    Comment by narciso — 9/21/2017 @ 3:26 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.

Live Preview

Powered by WordPress.