The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: separation of powers
White House Official Attacks Court After Legal Setbacks On Immigration

White House Official Attacks Court After Legal Setbacks On Immigration

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A White House official on Sunday attacked a U.S. court ruling that blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order on immigration as a “judicial usurpation of power” and said the administration was considering a range of options, including a new order.

Sustained criticism of the judiciary from the White House comes amid concern among Democrats and legal scholars over Trump’s view of the constitutional principle of judicial independence as the administration seeks to overcome legal setbacks to its travel ban issued on Jan. 27.

It has also become the backdrop against which U.S. senators consider Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch, for a lifetime appointment to the nation’s highest court.

The Republican president said on Friday that he may issue a new executive order rather than go through lengthy court challenges to the original one, which temporarily barred entry to the United States of people from seven Muslim-majority countries.

“We have multiple options and we are considering all of them,” White House senior policy adviser Stephen Miller said on ABC’s This Week.

Miller sharply criticized the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on Thursday that upheld a Seattle federal judge’s suspension of Trump’s executive order. He accused the San Francisco-based court of having a history of overreaching and of being overturned.

“This is a judicial usurpation of power,” he said on “Fox News Sunday.” “The president’s powers here are beyond question.”

The Trump administration has defended the travel ban on grounds it will prevent potential terrorists from entering the country, although no acts of terrorism have been perpetrated on U.S. soil by citizens of the targeted countries.

The ban’s announcement, late on a Friday, sparked a weekend of confusion at airports around the globe and within the federal agencies charged with enforcing it. It also triggered widespread protests and legal challenges.

Aware that a new executive order would allow critics to declare victory against the travel ban, the White House has deflected blame and intensified its criticism of the judiciary.

“I think it’s been an important reminder to all Americans that we have a judiciary that has taken far too much power and become in many cases a supreme branch of government,” Miller said on CBS’ Face the Nation.

“One unelected judge in Seattle cannot make laws for the entire country. I mean this is just crazy,” he said.

Miller’s performance on several Sunday news shows won a plaudit on Twitter from Trump, who has himself attacked individual judges and called the courts “so political.”

“Great job!” Trump tweeted.

ATTACKS CONDEMNED

Gorsuch condemned the attacks on the judiciary as “disheartening” in private meetings last week with a number of U.S. senators, who pressed the judge to go public. Ron Bonjean, a Republican strategist, confirmed the conversations.

Legal experts said the Trump administration statements could undermine respect for the constitutional division of powers.

Cornell University law professor Jens David Ohlin said that accusing the judiciary of usurping the president’s powers demonstrated “an absurd lack of appreciation for the separation of powers.”

“Miller is coming dangerously close to reviving a discredited and dangerous theory that each branch of government, including the president, has independent authority to decide what the law and Constitution mean,” Ohlin said in an interview on Sunday.

“In our system of government, the commander in chief executes the laws, but it is the judiciary which interprets both the laws and statutes passed by Congress and the Constitution. That’s their solemn duty,” he added.

Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, said Trump’s remarks could diminish popular respect for institutions of law and order by making Americans think “the government’s a joke, that you don’t have to follow what judges say.”

Immigration laws give the U.S. president broad powers to restrict who enters the country on national security grounds.

But the same laws forbid discrimination based on race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or residence. The case also could involve First Amendment protections involving religion.

Trump’s executive order banned entry into the United States to refugees and citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen for 90 days and all refugees for 120 days, except refugees from Syria, who were banned indefinitely.

Options for the administration include formulating a new executive action, appealing the 9th Circuit panel’s decision to the full appeals court and appealing the emergency stay to the U.S. Supreme Court, Miller said.

(Reporting by Doina Chiacu and Julia Harte; Writing by Doina Chiacu; Editing by Alan Crosby and Peter Cooney)

IMAGE: Senior White House Advisor Stephen Miller waits to go on the air in the White House Briefing Room in Washington, U.S., February 12, 2017. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

Supreme Court: Wife’s Toxin Use On Spouse’s Lover No ‘Chemical Weapons’ Plot

Supreme Court: Wife’s Toxin Use On Spouse’s Lover No ‘Chemical Weapons’ Plot

By David G. Savage, Tribune Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — Putting a toxic chemical on a neighbor’s mailbox is not the same as deploying a “chemical weapon,” the Supreme Court said Monday, throwing out a federal prosecution over what Chief Justice John Roberts called a “two-bit local assault.”

The justices decided to end the “curious case” of a jealous Pennsylvania woman who secretly inflicted a “minor chemical burn” on her husband’s lover and instead found herself convicted of violating the Chemical Weapons Treaty.

It was the second time the high court ruled for Carol Bond.

The case began in 2006 when Bond learned that one of her best friends was pregnant and that her husband was the child’s father.

A microbiologist, Bond obtained two toxic chemicals and spread them on the other woman’s car door, mailbox and door knob. The victim suffered a “minor chemical burn on her thumb” and called police after Bond was caught on surveillance cameras.

But in a surprising twist, prosecutors decided “literally to make a federal case out of it,” Roberts said. They charged her with two counts of using a chemical weapon. This was a federal crime under the terms of the 1998 law that implements the international treaty.

Bond was convicted and sentenced to six years in prison. She appealed on the grounds that using the federal law to prosecute a state crime violated the 10th Amendment, the provision that says some matters are “reserved to the states.”

She lost when a judge and the 3th Circuit Court in Philadelphia ruled that because she was an individual, not a state, she had no right to make such a claim. The Supreme Court disagreed in 2011.

But she lost again in the lower courts, which upheld her conviction.

In Monday’s opinion in Bond v. United States, the chief justice faulted the prosecutors and judges for ignoring common sense and misreading the federal law.

“An educated user of English would not describe Bond’s crime as involving a ‘chemical weapon,”’ Roberts said. Moreover, such a broad interpretation of the law would turn ordinary kitchen cleaning products into chemical weapons.

“Bond’s crime could hardly be more unlike the uses of mustard gas on the Western Front or nerve agents in the Iran-Iraq war that form the core concerns of that treaty,” he said. “The global need to prevent chemical warfare does not require the federal government to reach into the kitchen cupboard or treat a local assault with a chemical irritant as the deployment of a chemical weapons.”

All nine justices agreed on the outcome, but three would have gone further.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. would have ruled that it was unconstitutional to enforce a federal treaty in a way that tramples on a state’s authority.

AFP Photo/Karen Bleier