ahlam1399
02-13-2017, 06:15 AM
Court rubbishes bogey of ‘security concerns’, ‘national interest’
ISLAMABAD: The trashing of President Donald Trump’s ‘security concerns’ about travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries by the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals reflects the general view courts worldwide usually take regarding the Executive’s interpretation of measures it takes in the name of safety and protection of citizens and ‘national interest’, actually having other motives in mind.
Even in Pakistan, superior courts have mostly **t agreed with the definition of ‘national interest’ and ‘security concerns’ articulated by the administration and provided relief to aggrieved litigants against official determinations.
It has also happened here that mainly because of their obsession with transparency courts have **t kept under wraps some facts that the Executive brought to their k**wledge with the request that these should **t be divulged as their disclosure would harm ‘national interest’.
Trump’s reaction to the ruling that upheld the lower court’s decision rubbishing his ban on people from these Muslim countries to enter the United States was also similar to what many politicians in Pakistan say about the judicial verdicts that are **t up to their expectations and political ambitions.
Trump dubbed the judgment as “disgraceful”. Likewise, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan had once described the entire judiciary as “shameful” earning a **tice from the then Supreme Court chief justice, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. He had later modified his statement and got himself extricated of the possible contempt proceedings.
The agitation being vented out by President Trump is absolutely like the protest that is registered in Pakistan when the rulings are against the stands taken by successive governments. Statements of some politicians about the forthcoming decision of the Supreme Court in the Panama case are relevant to cite in this connection.
However, in the case of the United States, the decision of US District Judge James Robart in Seattle and its upholding by the Circuit Court of Appeals have made the world’s most powerful man helpless. He has gone into a tailspin how to implement his grand plan to block travelers from the Muslim countries.
However, the court decisions reflected the extraordinary strength of the American institutions and explained the importance and relevance of separation of powers between the Executive and Judiciary.
Quickly, the Justice Department filed an appeal and the appellate court remarkably speedily disposed of the case, undoing the confusion among the affected people. This is how the highly contentious issues are required to be adjudicated upon everywhere because their lingering creates confusion and uncertainty, which is harmful.
As is done in Pakistan and elsewhere, President Trump is trying to issue a**ther executive order, of course a modified one, to circumvent the court conclusion. A similar course is also at times adopted in Pakistan and many other countries with the primary purpose of skirting judgments, which governments don’t like.
Trump said he is considering drafting a new order to ban migrants from majority-Muslim nations after his initial decree fell afoul of the law. Insisting that he has the law on his side despite two defeats in federal court in quick succession, he said security concerns may necessitate a quicker response than legal channels would allow. “The unfortunate part is that it takes time statutorily, but we will win that battle. We also have a lot of other options, including just filing a brand new order. Any action would **t come before next week.”
It is apprehended that the US may plunge into further chaos **t only at home but also abroad and may have its global influence considerably waned if Trump was allowed to do what he wants and plans. At the very outset, he has been greatly checked by the courts. With his relations with the media already highly strained, there is every possibility that he may lock horns with the judiciary as well.
The court of appeals was **t at all impressed with the Justice Department’s arguments and said they have **t provided any evidence to support Trump's view that a ban on travellers from the seven countries was urgently needed. It also rejected the administration’s claim that it did **t have the authority to review the president’s executive order. “There is ** precedent to support this claimed unreviewability which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy.”
The judges hammered away at the administration’s claim that the ban was motivated by terrorism fears and they also challenged the argument of the states (Washington and Minnesota, which sued challenging the ban) that the restriction targeted the Muslims. “I have trouble understanding why we’re supposed to infer religious animus when in fact the vast majority of the Muslims would **t be affected,” Judge Richard Clifton asked an attorney representing Washington state and Minnesota.
The states said Trump’s travel ban harmed individuals’ businesses and universities. Citing Trump’s campaign promise to stop Muslims from entering the US, they said the ban unconstitutionally blocked entry to people based on religion.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/com/cwEr/~4/nFILoHEzZNI
أكثر... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/com/cwEr/~3/nFILoHEzZNI/185964-Like-Pak-politicians-Trump-loses-his-mind-on-adverse-court-ruling)
ISLAMABAD: The trashing of President Donald Trump’s ‘security concerns’ about travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries by the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals reflects the general view courts worldwide usually take regarding the Executive’s interpretation of measures it takes in the name of safety and protection of citizens and ‘national interest’, actually having other motives in mind.
Even in Pakistan, superior courts have mostly **t agreed with the definition of ‘national interest’ and ‘security concerns’ articulated by the administration and provided relief to aggrieved litigants against official determinations.
It has also happened here that mainly because of their obsession with transparency courts have **t kept under wraps some facts that the Executive brought to their k**wledge with the request that these should **t be divulged as their disclosure would harm ‘national interest’.
Trump’s reaction to the ruling that upheld the lower court’s decision rubbishing his ban on people from these Muslim countries to enter the United States was also similar to what many politicians in Pakistan say about the judicial verdicts that are **t up to their expectations and political ambitions.
Trump dubbed the judgment as “disgraceful”. Likewise, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan had once described the entire judiciary as “shameful” earning a **tice from the then Supreme Court chief justice, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. He had later modified his statement and got himself extricated of the possible contempt proceedings.
The agitation being vented out by President Trump is absolutely like the protest that is registered in Pakistan when the rulings are against the stands taken by successive governments. Statements of some politicians about the forthcoming decision of the Supreme Court in the Panama case are relevant to cite in this connection.
However, in the case of the United States, the decision of US District Judge James Robart in Seattle and its upholding by the Circuit Court of Appeals have made the world’s most powerful man helpless. He has gone into a tailspin how to implement his grand plan to block travelers from the Muslim countries.
However, the court decisions reflected the extraordinary strength of the American institutions and explained the importance and relevance of separation of powers between the Executive and Judiciary.
Quickly, the Justice Department filed an appeal and the appellate court remarkably speedily disposed of the case, undoing the confusion among the affected people. This is how the highly contentious issues are required to be adjudicated upon everywhere because their lingering creates confusion and uncertainty, which is harmful.
As is done in Pakistan and elsewhere, President Trump is trying to issue a**ther executive order, of course a modified one, to circumvent the court conclusion. A similar course is also at times adopted in Pakistan and many other countries with the primary purpose of skirting judgments, which governments don’t like.
Trump said he is considering drafting a new order to ban migrants from majority-Muslim nations after his initial decree fell afoul of the law. Insisting that he has the law on his side despite two defeats in federal court in quick succession, he said security concerns may necessitate a quicker response than legal channels would allow. “The unfortunate part is that it takes time statutorily, but we will win that battle. We also have a lot of other options, including just filing a brand new order. Any action would **t come before next week.”
It is apprehended that the US may plunge into further chaos **t only at home but also abroad and may have its global influence considerably waned if Trump was allowed to do what he wants and plans. At the very outset, he has been greatly checked by the courts. With his relations with the media already highly strained, there is every possibility that he may lock horns with the judiciary as well.
The court of appeals was **t at all impressed with the Justice Department’s arguments and said they have **t provided any evidence to support Trump's view that a ban on travellers from the seven countries was urgently needed. It also rejected the administration’s claim that it did **t have the authority to review the president’s executive order. “There is ** precedent to support this claimed unreviewability which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy.”
The judges hammered away at the administration’s claim that the ban was motivated by terrorism fears and they also challenged the argument of the states (Washington and Minnesota, which sued challenging the ban) that the restriction targeted the Muslims. “I have trouble understanding why we’re supposed to infer religious animus when in fact the vast majority of the Muslims would **t be affected,” Judge Richard Clifton asked an attorney representing Washington state and Minnesota.
The states said Trump’s travel ban harmed individuals’ businesses and universities. Citing Trump’s campaign promise to stop Muslims from entering the US, they said the ban unconstitutionally blocked entry to people based on religion.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/com/cwEr/~4/nFILoHEzZNI
أكثر... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/com/cwEr/~3/nFILoHEzZNI/185964-Like-Pak-politicians-Trump-loses-his-mind-on-adverse-court-ruling)