Trump asks Supreme Court to block ruling against travel ban

PEOPLE WITH A ‘BONA fiDE RELATIONSHIP’ TO A US PERSON OR ENTITY COULD NOT BE BARRED.

The US Justice Department on Friday asked the Supreme Court to block a judge’s ruling that prevented President Donald Trump’s travel ban from being applied to grandparents of US citizens and refugees already being processed by resettlement agencies.

In a court filing, the administration asked the justices to overturn Thursday’s decision by a US district judge in Hawaii, which limited the scope of the administration’s temporary ban on refugees and travelers from six Muslim- majority countries.

The latest round in the fight over Trump’s 6 March executive order, which he says is needed for national security reasons, came after the Supreme Court intervened last month to partially revive the two bans, which were blocked by lower courts.

The Supreme Court said then that the ban could take effect, but that people with a “bona fide relationship” to a US person or entity could not be barred. The administration had narrowly interpreted that language, saying the ban would apply to grandparents and other family members, prompting the state of Hawaii to ask Hawaii-based US District Judge Derrick Watson to expand the definition of who could be admitted. He ruled for the state late on Thursday.

In the court filing, the Justice Department said the judge’s ruling “empties the (Supreme) Court’s decision of meaning, as it encompasses not just “close” family members but virtually all family members. The conservativeleaning Supreme Court is not currently in session but the justices can handle emergency requests. The administration’s application could be directed either to Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has responsibility for emer- gency requests from western states, or to the nine justices as a whole. If the court as a whole is asked to weigh in, five votes are needed to grant such a request. “The truth here is that the government’s interpretation of the Supreme Court’s stay order defies common sense,” said Omar Jadwat, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union involved in challenging the ban. “That’s what the district court correctly found and the attorney general’s misleading attacks on its decision can’t change that fact.”

In his decision, Watson harshly criticized the government’s definition of close fam- ily relations as “the antithesis of common sense.”

Watson also ruled that the assurance by a resettlement agency to provide basic services to a newly arrived refugee constitutes an adequate connection to the United States because it is a sufficiently formal and documented agreement that triggers responsibilities and compensation.

In the court filing, the Justice Department said Watson’s ruling on refugees would make the Supreme Court’s decision on that part of the executive order “effectively meaningless.” on “thanks for your campaign efforts”. May’s alter ego, Amber Rudd gave a talk, acknowledging campaign mistakes, but in reality she was pitching herself as May’s successor. However, this is unlikely as she is now seen as a May derivative, and since May has played the female PM card, badly, the next PM probably will be male. Rudd took questions on electoral fraud. One candidate referred to thousands of postal votes being registered in the two weeks before the general election. Another queried why the election was during the university term time, enabling all the students to be present to vote (for Labour). Another candidate queried if further action was going to be taken against Anne Marie Morris, MP, who was suspended after using a disgraced colonial racist expression (N****r in a woodpile) during a Brexit debate. Rudd was tested about immigration figures, but did not give any conclusive answers. According to the Office of National Statistics, immigration in 2016 was estimated at 588,000, with an increase in emigration, mainly of EU citizens, of 339,000. In conversations, it is usually only the estimated net figure of 248,000 that is quoted, but the potential impact on UK’s social culture is more dramatic, when considered in real terms. It also questions Rudd’s new policy of making refugees of all nationalities, not just Syrians fleeing Syria eligible for resettlement in UK. As always, taking student numbers out of immigration figures was brought up.

For most candidates, the evening was unsatisfactory; only a handful got a furtive indication of approval. Many will have to re-sit their Parliament Assessment, even those who were accepted by “emergency” assessments two months ago and those who passed full assessments in 2015.

The Labour is divided over Corbyn’s socialist agenda and the Tories are divided over degrees of Brexit. In this climate, Theresa May is no longer strong and stable, it only requires 3 MPs to lose a byelection or the whip and the PM no longer has a majority. A storm is brewing. All the contenders are parading their virtues. The old-school Tory, Jacob Rees-Mogg is attracting a lot of media coverage; David Davis, Secretary of State for Brexit, fancies his chances; and Boris Johnson may turn out to be the stealth bomber. Johnson is thought to be deliberately keeping a low profile so he can fledge his nest in discreet locations over the summer recess. Johnson is likely to have the support of many from the 2010 and 2015 intake of MPs, despite defaulting on the leadership bid following the EU Referendum. It has been mentioned in Westminster that Johnson is the candidate who resonates most with David Cameron’s liberal Conservatism, missed by many since Mayism flopped. Theresa May might find she only has the backing of those she promoted in last month’s election (Gavin Barwell, et al). It is notable that Damien Green, Minister for the Cabinet Office and May’s friend since Oxford, not Michael Fallon, is May’s chosen spokesman. The Great Repeal Bill was launched on Thursday, originally the concept of MP Douglas Carswell and MEP Dan Hannan, the Bill is designed to explain how the government plans to Brexit, how EU laws will transform into British statutes. Already the Bill is threatened with obstruction from the unions, the Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish and Welsh governments and it might be another catalyst for disunity in the Tory Party. MPs and Peers will scrutinise, criticise and debate it in autumn.