Patterico's Pontifications

2/10/2017

Trump Favorably Cites Blog Post That Called His Executive Order “Incompetent Malevolence”

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:00 am



This morning Donald Trump tweeted:

The blog post he quotes, at Benjamin Wittes’s LAWFARE blog, is here. It does say what Trump says, it’s true:

Remarkably, in the entire opinion, the panel did not bother even to cite this statute, which forms the principal statutory basis for the executive order (see Sections 3(c), 5(c), and 5(d) of the order). That’s a pretty big omission over 29 pages, including several pages devoted to determining the government’s likelihood of success on the merits of the case.

But the post also says that “[t]he Ninth Circuit is correct to leave the TRO in place” — and also says the promulgation of Trump’s executive order was accomplished with “incompetent malevolence.”

Eventually, the court has to confront the clash between a broad delegation of power to the President—a delegation which gives him a lot of authority to do a lot of not-nice stuff to refugees and visa holders—in a context in which judges normally defer to the president, and the incompetent malevolence with which this order was promulgated.

To be fair to Trump, though, that’s the end of a 700-word blog post. So many words! The President is a busy man, and cannot be expected to read the entirety of something he quotes.

UPDATE: Hahahahaha. The tweet came from something our President saw on the teevee. This segment came 12 minutes before his tweet.

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]

38 Responses to “Trump Favorably Cites Blog Post That Called His Executive Order “Incompetent Malevolence””

  1. hello?

    the guy what wrote the article is a bought and paid for Brookings Institute/Harvard University opinion for hire douchebag

    But President Trump is correct in what he cites from the article and in his characterization of the decision

    You have to keep in mind that if a harvardtrash princess fails to sniff about “incompetent malevolence” or somesuch when writing about President Trump, the consequences can be career-ending

    so I think this is more just boilerplate harvardtrash twaddle than actual substantive criticism

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  2. He’s on it!!!

    Meanwhile, in other news… http://ace.mu.nu/archives/368362.php

    Colonel Haiku (d8affe)

  3. Gosh if you don’t address the underlying law, its like cliffnotes without the summary, capisce

    narciso (d1f714)

  4. How about asking Ron Johnson or candace miller, what theybthink of the order

    narciso (d1f714)

  5. it’s pretty ballsy though to use the phrase “incompetent malevolence” in an article about a case being decided by a bunch of inept hateful losers what get reversed 80% of the time

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  6. It may not be a Trumpian blunder. He’s quoting criticism of the opinion by someone who supports the decision, as if he (Trump) is saying that even his opponents think the decision is flawed.

    BTW, there’s a point that occurred to me.
    If the President’s power over immigration is inherent in his powers relative to foreign relations, then Obama could have done whatever he wanted to regarding illegal immigration, and what Congress does regarding amnesty or enforcement is irrelevant.

    The real answer of course is that immigration is controlled by Congress, and any Presidential powers in that area are simply delegated to him by Congress. POTUS has powers relative to foreign countries (Iran, for instance), but Congress deals with foreign individuals (Iranians, to continue the for instance).

    kishnevi (870883)

  7. Because there is a law, it doesn’t matter how they have characterized it, but it is the template on which the order wee built

    narciso (d1f714)

  8. Narciso, they used an undersized griddle to make an oversized waffle….

    kishnevi (870883)

  9. Whew! Glad they were able to squeeze in a little virtue signalling.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  10. Why because the 9th circus says so,

    narciso (d51633)

  11. Wittes’ Razor: Always attribute to incompetent malevolence what might otherwise be viewed as simple inexperience.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  12. Donald Trump knows about this provision of law:

    (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

    Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

    And he probably intends to run with it, and use it in many, many unanticipated ways.

    Sammy Finkelman (ebf45c)

  13. What is more important? The court never mentioning the statute that gives the President power to stop entry of aliens or Trump not vetting his order through the bureaucracy? How dare them!

    AZ Bob (f7a491)

  14. So. Many. Words.

    SteveD (01c263)

  15. In the case of a Syrian wanting to immigrate to America, he has to fill out a paperwork at the embassy, state his reasons for coming, have his background checked.

    I’m not fully aware of all the steps except in the knowing that there are steps, and hurdles that need to be crossed. Here. https://www.uscis.gov/forms

    These steps and hurdles are due process.

    The only malevolent incompetence is when activist judges who are bent on destroying our country from within claim an EO is invalid by a lack of due process when the entire transaction is due process from beginning to end.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  16. The Appeals Court decision was based (according to the decision itself) on the feds’ failure to meet their burden to show that they would prevail against the constitutional due process claims of the states.

    No statute can give the president authority to violate or ignore the constitution, so it seems to me that complaints about failing to cite the statute completely miss the point.

    The opinion says, specifically:

    The Government has not shown that it is likely to succeed on appeal on its arguments about, at least, the States’ Due Process Clause claim, and we also note the serious nature of the allegations the States have raised with respect to their religious discrimination claims. We express no view as to any of the States’ other claims.

    (emphasis added)

    The court did not cite the statute because it did not need to consider the statute to dispose of the matter before it. The likelihood of failure on one of the states’ claims means the feds did not meet the burden of proof for staying the TRO.

    Dave (711345)

  17. UPDATE: Hahahahaha. The tweet came from something our President saw on the teevee. This segment came 12 minutes before his tweet.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  18. he’s absolutely right though these judges are buffoons

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  19. What is more important? The court never mentioning the statute that gives the President power to stop entry of aliens or Trump not vetting his order through the bureaucracy? How dare them!

    I think the court’s opinion assumed he has that power, but also assumed the statutory power granted him is subject to constitutional scrutiny.

    If this had been a separation of powers opinion, the omission would be important, because the grant of authority goes to the constitutional analysis. But this was a due process opinion. The 1182(f) authority was assumed for the sake of argument and thus not even mentioned, because it’s not relevant to the due process issue.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  20. many miles away terror’s shadow’s on the door

    of a nightclub school or store

    cause of judges

    they made a big mistake

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  21. If you make a request to enter the country, and the answer back is no, you received due process.

    Doesn’t matter how you feel about the answer.

    Mommas don’t let your babies grow up to be cut throats. Cause we won’t let them roam, so they’ll never leave home, and probably kill someone you love.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  22. The 9th circuit is a court only notionally.

    Like Obama was a President, or George McClellan was a general.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  23. Is a thing imbued with a purpose by a name?

    I think it has to have function first.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  24. Is a thing imbued with a purpose by a name?

    I think it has to have function first.

    That’s Trump. PINO — President In Name Only. You see, papertiger, we’re on to the Trumpkin trick of projecting Trump’s defects, deficiencies, and defalcations to his opponents.

    nk (dbc370)

  25. No that’s not it at all.

    Let me illustrate.

    Is a dam still a dam with a big hole in the middle?

    Are you starting to get it?

    papertiger (c8116c)

  26. To quote O.J., “lemme ax you sumfin'”. Do you want secure borders or do you just want Trump giving the finger to Muslims. Cos this kabuki ain’t accomplishing that first thing.

    nk (dbc370)

  27. And – is where healing begins.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  28. teh poor media
    they just runnin’ around in
    teh shoes of a clown

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  29. Spotcheck Billy got down on his hands and knees
    and he said “hey, mama, hey can I check yer oil alright?”
    and she said, “no… no, honey… not tonight”

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  30. The 9th circus is a figment of someone’s deranged imagination, now taking them seriously, Shirley, now a law professor who takes assertions as law over fact.

    narciso (d1f714)

  31. Its curious who they deem unworthy of a security clearance.

    https://mcgazette.blogspot.com/2012_12_01_archive.html

    narciso (d1f714)

  32. I like how they emphasize he didn’t read all the way through to page 23 on the next to last paragraph.

    Are these guys bucking for promotion to New York Times editor or what?

    papertiger (c8116c)

  33. If they had a real point or an actual objection it would have been on page one.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  34. I received a couple chuckles from the other two conservatives on the Cape when I tossed a friend of ours – who is a Judge, a pussy hat. He was not as amused as us. Heh.,

    mg (31009b)

  35. Oh, look! If the news is negative for Trump, Patrick writes about it! If the news is positive or sympathetic to Trump, it gets delegated to the bench.
    Shocker.

    School Marm (5999c1)

  36. Trump should declare martial law on terrorism. That would put those hack judges in their place until the effing supremes make it right.
    Oh, and deputize all Trump voters so we can citizen arrest all conservative traitors.

    mg (31009b)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1023 secs.