Trump Has Made His Supreme Court Nomination. What Happens Next?

Trump Has Made His Supreme Court Nomination.

What Happens Next?

Judge Neil Gorsuch, middle, and his wife Marie Louise look on as President Donald Trump nominated him for the Supreme Court on Tuesday.  (BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / AFP/GETTY IMAGES) 

By DANIEL VICTOR

President Trump on Tuesday night named Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, a federal appeals court judge in Denver, to replace Justice Antonin Scalia on the United States Supreme Court. But there’s a long way to go before the new nominee is confirmed.

Judge Gorsuch will immediately face a public and private gantlet of scrutiny, and could end up at the center of fevered political maneuvering. Just 51 votes are needed to confirm him, but one big question looms:

Will the Senate Democrats filibuster the nomination? That would require 60 votes to overcome.

Expect the task to drag on for months: Elena Kagan was confirmed 87 days after she was nominated, in 2010; Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation in 2009 took 66 days, and Samuel Alito Jr. was confirmed 82 days after his nod, in 2006.

At 49 years old, Neil Gorsuch is the youngest supreme court nominee in 25 years.

Photograph: Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images

Events would have to unfold very smoothly for the nominee to be confirmed by April 26, the date of the last scheduled arguments in the current court term, which typically ends in late June. The next term begins in October.

Here’s what to expect in the nomination process.

1. Scrutiny of every word he has said

The nominee must fill out an elaborate questionnaire, which the Senate will examine. He will be asked to list every client he has ever represented, sources of income, speaking fees, travel destinations, media interviews, writings — everything short of where he went to summer camp.
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage

The questionnaire often runs hundreds of pages long.

The F.B.I. will immediately begin a background check, and the staff members of senators on the Judiciary Committee will start their own investigations.

2. Private meetings with senators

As others pore over documents, the nominee will be calling and meeting with as many senators as possible.

The closed-door meetings typically take 15 minutes to an hour, said Stephen Wermiel, a constitutional law professor at American University.

The senators are typically looking to learn about how the nominee thinks and what makes the justice-to-be tick, while the nominee is trying to learn what concerns the senators might have, Mr. Wermiel said.

3. The ‘murder board’

There will most likely be political jostling over how the confirmation hearing is conducted.

Democrats and Republicans will haggle over issues such as when it will occur, how many rounds of questioning will unfold, how long the rounds will last and how many outside witnesses will be allowed.

Republicans will likely try to minimize the length of the hearings, Mr. Wermiel said.

The nominee will probably undergo mock questioning from advisers in what is known politely as a “murder board.” It’s similar to the practice sessions presidential candidates go through with their staff before squaring off in a televised debate; advisers try to anticipate the questions that senators will ask.

“Ideally, their goal would be that a nominee goes in there facing no question that he had not already heard in one of those sessions,” Mr. Wermiel said.

4. Public hearings

Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. once called the hearings a “Kabuki dance.”

Justice Kagan called them a “vapid and hollow charade.”

Nonetheless, the televised hearings will be conducted by the 20 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is made up of 11 Republicans, including Ted Cruz, Orrin Hatch and Lindsey Graham; and nine Democrats, including Dianne Feinstein, Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken. It is chaired by Chuck Grassley, a Republican.

There’s an art to the questioning, since nominees must be careful not to take positions on issues that might come before the court. For example, if a nominee directly expressed a preference to overturn Roe v. Wade, the ruling that legalized abortion across the nation, the judge may have to be recused from a future case.

So committee members typically ask more roundabout questions, hoping to read the tea leaves about how the nominee’s judicial philosophies would apply to hot-button issues.

“It’s this sort of odd dance in which the Senators are trying to elicit some sense of how the nominee thinks about important constitutional questions, but they can’t really ask the things that they want to ask,” Mr. Wermiel said.

Recently, the hearings have lasted for three or four days. Expect the senators to question the nominee for a few days, plus an additional day for outside witnesses.

At least a week after the hearings, the committee will vote on sending the nomination to the full Senate.

A simple majority is needed, but there’s a twist: By tradition, Supreme Court nominations are sent to the Senate even if the nominee is rejected by the committee.

5. Decision time in the Senate

Then it’ll be in the hands of all 100 senators, where Republicans hold a 52-46 advantage over Democrats (two independents caucus with the Democrats). Both Democrats and Republicans will have difficult decisions to make with vast political consequences.

If the Democrats filibuster the nomination, Republicans would need 60 votes to end the filibuster, requiring some Democrats to join the Republicans.

That is, unless Republicans use the so-called nuclear option, a rare maneuver to end the filibuster. Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, has not ruled out the possibility, but is considered to be a strong believer in the traditions of the Senate, including the right of the minority party to filibuster.

In 2013, Senator Harry Reid, a Democrat and the majority leader at the time, used the tactic to push through the Obama administration’s judicial and executive nominees. Furious Republicans vowed that Democrats would regret it once control of the Senate flipped.

Mr. McConnell was among those who condemned the tactic at the time. But he said in November that any Republican retaliation by using the nuclear option themselves could backfire.

“I don’t think we should act as if we’re going to be in the majority forever,” he said.

Source: nytimes

Trump Nominates Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court

Trump Nominates Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court

President Trump announced Judge Neil M. Gorsuch as his nominee for the Supreme Court on Tuesday in the East Room of the White House. Credit Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS and MARK LANDLER

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Tuesday nominated Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, a federal appeals court judge in Denver, to fill the Supreme Court seat left open by the death last year of Justice Antonin Scalia, elevating a jurist whose conservative bent and originalist philosophy fit the mold of the man he would succeed.

Vice President Mike Pence with Justice Antonin Scalia’s wife, Maureen.

Credit Al Drago/The New York Times

Mr. Trump’s announcement, delivered during prime time in the East Room of the White House, marked his first bid to reshape the nation’s highest court, as he had promised so often on the campaign trail.

“Judge Gorsuch has outstanding legal skills, a brilliant mind, tremendous discipline and has earned bipartisan support,” Mr. Trump said, standing beside the judge and his wife, Louise, in the East Room. “It is an extraordinary resume — as good as it gets.”

If confirmed, Judge Gorsuch would restore the 5-to-4 split between liberals and conservatives on the court, handing Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, 80, who votes with both blocs, the swing vote.

At 49, Judge Gorsuch is the youngest nominee to the Supreme Court in 25 years, underscoring his potential to shape major decisions for decades to come. In choosing him, Mr. Trump reached for a reliably conservative figure in the Scalia tradition but not someone known to be divisive.

Mr. Trump, who recognized Justice Scalia’s wife, Maureen, in the audience as he announced his choice, praised the “late, great” jurist, saying his “image and genius was in my mind throughout the decision-making process.”

Judge Gorsuch said he was humbled by his “most solemn assignment” and said he would be “a faithful servant of the Constitution and laws of this great country.” he said.

The president, facing what is likely to be a bitter partisan battle over Judge Gorsuch’s confirmation, expressed hope that he could avoid such a dispute.

“I only hope that both Democrats and Republicans can come together for once, for the good of the country,” Mr. Trump said.

Still, Democrats in the Senate, stung by the Republican refusal to confirm President Barack Obama’s nominee for the seat, Judge Merrick B. Garland, have promised stiff resistance.

The White House had stoked suspense over Mr. Trump’s court choice in the hours before announcing it. A senior Trump administration official said both Judge Gorsuch and Judge Thomas M. Hardiman of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit were summoned to Washington for the nomination ceremony. But only Judge Gorsuch appeared at the ceremony shortly after 8 p.m.

In an allusion to the work he and his team had done to build that suspense, Mr. Trump interrupted his own announcement to marvel at his showmanship. “So what that a surprise?” the president said after announcing Judge Gorsuch’s name. “Was it?”

There had been speculation that Mr. Trump would choose someone with a less elite background for the court. The other finalist for the post, Judge Hardiman, was the first person in his family to graduate from college, and helped pay for his education by driving a taxi.

A Colorado native who was in the same class at Harvard Law School as Mr. Obama, Judge Gorsuch is known for his well-written, measured opinions that are normally, though not exclusively, conservative. He holds a Ph.D. from Oxford University, where he was a Marshall Scholar, and a pedigree as a law clerk at the Supreme Court to Justices Byron R. White and Kennedy. President George W. Bush nominated Judge Gorsuch to the federal bench in 2006.

Judge Gorsuch’s personal connections to Justice Kennedy are no accident. By choosing a familiar figure, several officials said, the White House is sending a reassuring signal to Justice Kennedy, 80, who has been mulling retirement.

Choosing a more ideologically extreme candidate, the officials said, could tempt Justice Kennedy to hang on to his seat for several more years, depriving Mr. Trump of another seat to fill.

Still, Judge Gorsuch’s conservative credentials are not in doubt. He has voted in favor of employers, including Hobby Lobby, who invoked religious objections for refusing to provide some forms of contraception coverage to their female workers. And he has criticized liberals for turning to the courts rather than the legislature to achieve their policy goals.

There had been speculation that Mr. Trump would choose someone with a less elite background for the court. The other finalist for the post, Judge Thomas M. Hardiman, was the first person in his family to graduate from college, and helped pay for his education by driving a taxi.

Judge Gorsuch, on the other hand, is the son of Anne Gorsuch Burford, who became the first female head of the Environmental Protection Agency under President Ronald Reagan. He attended Georgetown Preparatory School, outside Washington, before going to Columbia University.

Democrats, who declined invitations from Mr. Trump to attend the White House announcement ceremony, seemed unlikely to be satisfied with Mr. Trump’s choice. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, has said he is ready to block any candidate he sees as outside the mainstream, a stance that could touch off a Senate showdown.

Judge Gorsuch will need to draw the support of eight Democrats to join the 52 Republicans in the Senate to surmount a filibuster and move forward with an up-or-down confirmation vote.

But Mr. Trump is already urging Republicans to change longstanding rules and push through his nominee on a simple majority vote.

Progressive groups were already planning a rally in front of the court on Tuesday night, anticipating an “extreme” nominee.

“Activists will make clear that the Senate cannot confirm a nominee who will simply be a rubber stamp for President Trump’s anticonstitutional efforts that betray American values,” according to a statement from the organizations, which include People for the American Way, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and Naral Pro-Choice America.

Conservative groups, too, were planning a major push to defend Mr. Trump’s nominee. Within minutes of the president’s announcement, organizers said, the Judicial Crisis Network was to begin the first phase in a $10 million television advertising campaign on the nominee’s behalf, along with a website promoting Mr. Trump’s pick. More than 50 groups were backing the effort, including gun rights and anti-abortion rights activists and the Tea Party.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/politics/supreme-court-nominee-trump.html

Meet the man the White House has honored for deporting illegal immigrants

Meet the man the White House has honored for deporting illegal immigrants

Thomas Homan, executive associate director of enforcement and removal operations for

 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Department of Homeland Security)

By Lisa Rein

This story has been updated.

Thomas Homan deports people. And he’s really good at it.

Homan is the Washington bureaucrat in charge of rounding up, detaining and kicking illegal immigrants out of the country. As Americans fight over whether the next president should build a wall on the Mexico border to keep migrants out or protect millions of them from deportation, Homan is actually hunting undocumented immigrants down right now, setting strategy for 8,000 officers on the front lines.

He was honored last week with the government’s highest civil service award, bestowed on federal leaders whose work gets “extraordinary” results. According to his bosses at the Department of Homeland Security, not only did Homan successfully handle an unexpected surge of unaccompanied children and families who have streamed here from Central America across the Southwest border, but last year his operations set records for the share of illegal immigrants expelled from the U.S. who had criminal records.

Many of President Obama’s immigration policies have been unpopular with immigration advocates who say he has not done enough to overhaul a system that relies on deportations. But Homeland Security officials were intent on plugging Homan’s success.

“The first thing I do when I get into the office every day is I read the media stories about immigration,” he said in an interview before receiving a 2015 Presidential Rank Award for distinguished service at a banquet at State Department Thursday night put on by the Senior Executives Association’s Professional Development League. Forty-two other senior executives were honored.

“I sit here in the morning and I get frustrated,” he said. “People don’t understand what we do or how we do it. They just make assumptions.”

The career immigration official is quick to note that people who are deported have exhausted their due-process rights to stay in the United States “and already had their day in court.” Someone in poor health is not going to be automatically expelled, he said.

“Yes, it’s not my favorite part of the job,” Homan said of deportations. “But their due process is over. That final order of removal needs to mean something.”

If Donald Trump or Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) gets to the White House, this former New York police officer could be the person charged with deporting approximately 11 million people who are in the United States illegally. Or he could delay kicking out about 5 million undocumented migrants whom the Obama administration has sought to allow to work here legally, making its case last week before the Supreme Court.

Homan, 54, is a plainspoken — he likes to call it outspoken — former patrolman from far-upstate New York with a strawberry-blond crew cut and baby-blue eyes. He has worked almost every job at the agency now called Immigration and Customs Enforcement — border-patrol agent, investigator, supervisor, up the ranks to his current post, executive associate director for enforcement and removal operations. He joined the immigration agency in 1989.

“The entire life cycle of immigration,” he said, referring to the purview of his career. “I’ve arrested aliens. I’ve sat on low houses. I’ve worked on the front lines. I’m a cop in a cop’s job, and cops work for me,” he said, crediting his 27 years in immigration enforcement with earning him the respect of the 8,000 men and women on his staff.

The White House cited his success expanding arrests and detention beds for the recent surge in children and families fleeing violence in Central America. While the number of deportations of illegal immigrants with criminal records has declined in recent years, last year this group made up almost 60 percent of the total number expelled from the country, the largest percentage in recent memory, ICE officials said.

Homan managed these deportations with the help of an expanded fingerprinting system that local police departments share with immigration authorities.

By following the Obama administration’s directive to sharpen the focus of enforcement on criminals and foreigners who pose security threats, “We executed the mission perfectly,” Homan said.

[Obama’s immigration plan aims to limit deportations to certain groups]

But the mission is under attack from conservatives on the right and immigration advocates on the left, with Republican demands for more border enforcement and anger from Latinos who blame Obama for carrying out large-scale deportations and a failure to overhaul immigration laws. Trump has pledged to kick out illegal immigrants and build a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico, and Cruz says he would deport 11 million people who are not authorized to be here.

[How high would Donald Trump’s wall to keep out immigrants be?]

Homan’s boss, ICE Director Sarah R. Saldaña, said in a statement that she has the “utmost confidence in Mr. Homan and the work that he and all the women and men of ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations do every day.”

“Tom and his team are dedicated to enforcing the law every day in order to protect national security, border security and public safety.”

At a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in February, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) told Homan he was disappointed that ICE had ordered only 121 people deported after immigration judges denied the asylum petitions of 1,800 migrants.

“Did people say: ‘Good work, Mr. Homan. You’re doing a good job?’ ” Sessions asked. “Or did they attack you for trying to enforce the law the judge had ordered?”

The group Human Rights First criticized the administration in a report last week charging that chronic underfunding, hiring challenges and shifting enforcement strategies have led to alarming backlogs in the asylum and immigration systems, with more than 620,000 pending removal and asylum cases.

[Homeland Security chief defends President Obama’s immigration plan to House Republicans]

Homan won’t talk publicly about the immigration debate or which side he is on. He says he is only enforcing the law as it stands now. He winces at what he calls a widespread misunderstanding on both sides of what his staff really does.

He tells his employees in the field that they have nothing to apologize for.

“They’re beaten down, frankly,” he said. “But the laws were enacted by Congress. We don’t do schoolhouse raids or neighborhood raids. We don’t show up with bulletproof vests. I’m not ashamed of what I do.”

Instead, “we arrest a lot of bad guys,” he said. “We prevent crimes.”

Homan moved to Washington in 2013 to take ICE’s top enforcement job. He said he meets a lot of new people who do not view what he does with admiration.

“There are folks I meet who say: ‘I read this. I saw this in the news. That sounds terrible,’ ” he said. “I try to spend my time educating them.”

[President Obama’s immigration plan could collapse at the Supreme Court ]

And yes, Homan has a definite opinion on Trump and his immigration policies.

“Sorry. I can’t say what I think,” he said.

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect that in 2015, Homan’s team was responsible for a record percentage of total ICE deportations of undocumented immigrants with criminal histories. The story had incorrectly said the team was responsible for a “record number” of deportations of these migrants.

Source: washingtonpost.com.

Trump Replaces Acting Director of Immigration Enforcement

Trump Replaces Acting Director of Immigration Enforcement

Daniel Ragsdale, left, then deputy director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 

at a news conference in Washington in March 2014. AP

by Alex Johnson

President Donald Trump replaced the acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Monday night, shortly after he fired the acting attorney general, the Department of Homeland Security confirmed.

Unlike the firing of Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, the replacement of Acting ICE Director Daniel Ragsdale came with no explanation. Ragsdale was replaced by Thomas Homan, ICE's executive associate director of enforcement and removal operations since 2013.

"I am confident that he will continue to serve as a strong, effective leader for the men and women of ICE," John Kelly, the secretary of Homeland Security, said in a brief statement.

Thomas Homan, President Donald Trump's new acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in an undated photo. Immigration and Customs Enforcement / via Reuters

ICE said late Monday that Ragsdale remains in his previous, full-time position as deputy director.

Homan, a former New York police officer, is a 30-year veteran of immigration enforcement, having served as a U.S. Border Patrol agent and deputy assistant director of ICE for investigations before becoming deputy director, according to DHS.

The announcement came as turmoil swirled around Washington over Trump's firing of Yates, an Obama administration holdover, as acting attorney general.

In a blistering statement announcing Yates' replacement, the White House cited her memo earlier in the day ordering Justice Department lawyers not to go to court to defend sharp restrictions Trump ordered last week on immigration from seven majority Muslim countries.

No such language was used in the announcement of Ragsdale's replacement, and there was no indication that he was being removed from the agency. Like Yates, Ragsdale was promoted to acting director after having served as deputy director of his agency during the Obama administration. 

President Trump Fires Acting Attorney General Sally Yates

President Trump Fires Acting Attorney General Sally Yates

Jessica McBride

Accusing her of betrayal, President Donald Trump has fired his Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, who was standing in outright defiance against Trump’s executive order on immigration.

Yates, a Barack Obama appointee, had written an extraordinary letter by historical standards, telling Justice Department lawyers not to defend the Trump executive order, according to CNN.

Here’s the White House statement on the firing of Yates, who was replaced by Dana Boente:

Statement on the Appointment of Dana Boente as Acting Attorney General

The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States.

This order was approved as to form and legality by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.

Ms. Yates is an Obama Administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration.

It is time to get serious about protecting our country. Calling for tougher vetting for individuals travelling from seven dangerous places is not extreme. It is reasonable and necessary to protect our country.

Tonight, President Trump relieved Ms. Yates of her duties and subsequently named Dana Boente, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to serve as Acting Attorney General until Senator Jeff Sessions is finally confirmed by the Senate, where he is being wrongly held up by Democrat senators for strictly political reasons.

“I am honored to serve President Trump in this role until Senator Sessions is confirmed. I will defend and enforce the laws of our country to ensure that our people and our nation are protected,” said Dana Boente, Acting Attorney General.

When Yates’ letter leaked on January 30, people wondered whether Trump could and would fire Yates. The answer was, yes, he could – and he just did, within a few hours.

According to CNN, “The White House could choose to fire Yates and install someone who will carry out the administration’s priorities, but it did not immediately respond to a CNN request for comment.” Before the firing, the president did tweet on the topic, though, calling Yates an “Obama AG.”

The Democrats are delaying my cabinet picks for purely political reasons. They have nothing going but to obstruct. Now have an Obama A.G.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 31, 2017

However, The New York Times highlighted a possible wrinkle in Trump firing Yates. “She is the only one authorized to sign foreign surveillance warrants, an essential function at the department,” The Times reported.

Yates was not likely to hold her position for long anyway, so Trump could have decided just to wait it out.

Yates was only the acting AG until/if Trump’s nominee Jeff Sessions takes over the position. Now that’s true of her replacement. Then, it’s Sessions’ decision, and no one expects him to split from Trump on the issue. The Senate Judiciary Committee has a scheduled hearing on Sessions’ confirmation Tuesday. According to USA Today, some Democrats are demanding that Sessions reveal his position on the immigration executive order before the Senate votes.

According to her Justice Department bio, “Sally Q. Yates was confirmed as Deputy Attorney General on May 13, 2015. President Obama formally nominated her for the position on January 8, 2015.” She is a former U.S. Attorney from Georgia.

NBC News called Yates’ act “the most serious rebellion by the Justice Department since the ‘Saturday Night Massacre’ of October 1973, when Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus resigned rather than carry out President Richard Nixon’s order to fire Archibald Cox, the Watergate special prosecutor.”

The New York Times reported that Yates wrote a letter questioning the legality of the executive order, which temporarily bans immigration from six Muslim-majority countries, and indefinitely bans immigration from Syria. The executive order has sparked protests at airports throughout the United States after it initially resulted in the detention of some green card holders and people granted asylum. The government has now clarified that it doesn’t apply to green card holders. A lawsuit was filed on behalf of two Iraqi men detained and released. It argues that the order is unconstitutional, contending it singles out Muslims, in part because the order grants preference to those from minority religions. Reuters is reporting that the government has “granted waivers to let 872 refugees” into the United States since Trump’s executive order, which has a case-by-case exemption procedure. The sudden nature of the order had caught many people by surprise and led to confusion.

According to the Guardian, Yates “has control over the justice department’s immigration litigation office.”

Ironically, when the U.S. Senate confirmed Yates as deputy attorney general in 2015 on a 84-12 vote, Republican opposition centered around anger “over President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration,” Politico reported.

Speaking out against her? Jeff Sessions. According to Politico, the Republican senator from Alabama “urged his colleagues to defeat Yates. Sessions…objected to what he said was her involvement in defending the federal government against a lawsuit 26 states have filed challenging unilateral actions Obama took in November to grant millions of illegal immigrants quasi-legal status and work permits.” Sessions called it “presidential overreach,” according to Politico.

“My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts,” Yates wrote in the letter to lawyers at the Justice Department, according to The New York Times.

The letter continued:

In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful.

According to USA Today, Trump’s executive order “had been reviewed by the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel before it was issued Friday. The OLC, whose authority narrowly addresses the form and whether the order is narrowly drafted, approved the order.” However, according to the newspaper, Yates wrote that the OLC did not review whether the order was “wise or just.”

Not to Defend President Trump's executive order on immigration in court

Acting Attorney General Orders Justice Dept.

Not to Defend Refugee Ban

By MATT APUZZO and ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON — Acting Attorney General Sally Q. Yates, a holdover from the Obama administration, ordered the Justice Department on Monday not to defend President Trump’s executive order on immigration in court.

“I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right,” Ms. Yates wrote in a letter to Justice Department lawyers. “At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful.”

The decision is largely symbolic — Mr. Trump’s nominee to be attorney general, Jeff Sessions, is likely to be confirmed soon — but it highlights the deep divide at the Justice Department and elsewhere in the government over Mr. Trump’s order.

Mr. Trump has the authority to fire Ms. Yates, but as the top Senate-confirmed official at the Justice Department, she is the only one authorized to sign foreign surveillance warrants, an essential function at the department.

“For as long as I am the acting attorney general, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the executive order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so,” she wrote.

Letter From Sally Yates.

Original Document (pdf)

Sally Yates, the acting attorny general and a holdover from the Obama administration, sent this letter on Monday to top lawyers at the Justice Department, directing them not to defend the White House's executive order on immigration during her remaining time at the department.

Australian dual nationals won’t be banned from the US

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull says Australian dual nationals won’t be banned from the US

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull says Australian dual nationals will be able to travel to the US. Picture: Mick Tsikas/AAP

Charis Chang news.com.au

PRIME Minister Malcolm Turnbull has confirmed that Australian dual nationals will not be stopped from entering the United States.

Mr Turnbull said confirmation had come from US National Security Advisor, General Michael Flynn this morning that Australian dual nationals would be able to travel to the US in the same way they were prior to Donald Trump’s executive order.

“I’ve just received that official confirmation,” he told SkyNews.

“Australian passport holders will be able to travel to the US in the same way as they were able to prior to the executive order.”

Mr Trump’s immigration ban stopped people from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the US. This included those who held joint citizenship from those countries: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia.

The order has caused widespread confusion over who is able to travel to the US, with a Melbourne schoolboy being denied a visa on Monday to attend a space camp.

In explaining the exemption, Mr Turnbull said Australia had a “strong relationship” with the US.

He also addressed criticism about his reluctance to condemn Mr Trump’s ban, saying he was it the national interest to reserve his comments on American domestic policy for private discussions.

“My job as Prime Minister of Australia is to advance the national interest of Australia and protect the interests of Australian citizens,” he said.

“When I need to give frank advice, fearless advice, to the United States Government, I do so privately.

“But I don’t comment on American domestic policy publicly, my job is to get results for Australians.”

Yesterday Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said she would be seeking an exemption from the Trump administration for dual Australian citizens impacted by the ban, similar to the exemption granted to UK and Canadian citizens.

Đầu Năm. Địt mẹ ! tao chửi chúng mày một tiếng đảng súc sinh cộng sản Việt Nam - teolangthang.blogspot.com

Địt mẹ, đảng súc sinh cộng sản Việt Nam

Việt gian Cộng Sản

• Việt Cộng chết hết và chết một cách thảm khốc.

• Thân Cộng (ăn cơm quốc gia thờ ma Cộng sản), VGCS chết hết và chết một cách thảm thương.

• Những kẻ đánh phá hoặc mạ lỵ những ngưòi chống Cộng để làm lợi cho Việt Cộng hay để gây chia rẽ hàng ngũ người Việt Quốc Gia, cũng chết hết và chết một cách thảm hại.

• Những đứa quên tư cách tỵ nạn Cộng Sản Việt Nam, những kẻ luồn trôn Việt Cộng, những tên việt kiều về ăn chơi nuôi sống Việt Cộng, đi máy bay sẽ nổ, đi tàu thì tàu chìm, đi bất cứ bằng phương tiện nào, sẽ chết và chết một cách thảm hại, chết tan xương nát thịt.

Tao Chửi Mày Một Tiếng
Trạch Gầm

Đụ má, cho tao chửi mày một tiếng,
Đất của Ông Cha sao mày cắt cho Tàu?
Ngậm phải củ gì mà mày cứng miệng,
Đảng của mày, chết mẹ … đảng tào lao.

Chế độ mày vài triệu tay cầm súng,
Cầm súng làm gì … chẳng lẽ hiếp dân.
Tao không tin lính lại hèn đến thế,
Lại rụng rời … trước tai ách ngoại xâm.

Mày vỗ ngực. Anh hùng đầy trước ngõ,
Sao cứ luồn, cứ cúi, cứ van xin
“Môi liền răng” à thì ra vậy đó
Nó cạp mày, mày thin thít lặng thinh.

Ông Cha mình bốn ngàn năm dựng nước,
Một ngàn năm đánh tan tác giặc Tàu.
Thân phận mày cũng là Lê, là Nguyễn
Hà cớ gì … mày hèn đến thế sao!

Chuyện mày làm Toàn Dân đau như thiến,
Mày chết rồi, tao nghĩ chẳng đất chôn.
Hãy tỉnh lại ôm linh hồn sông núi,
Cứ đà này … chết tiệt còn sướng hơn.

Đàn gảy tai trâu … xem chừng vô ích,
Giờ mày nghe tao chửi còn hơn không ….

Too late to stop China's sea grab

Too late to stop China's sea grab

Lisa Martin Australian Associated Press

Former Australian defence force chief Angus Houston has concluded it may be too late to stop Beijing's activities in the South China Sea.

Instead the focus should shift to ensuring freedom of navigation and the right of innocent passage, Sir Angus told a dinner conference on Australia-Japan-US strategic co-operation on Monday night in Canberra.

China claims most of the South China Sea, which is oil and gas rich and has $5 trillion in trade pass through every year. Brunei, Malaysia, Taiwan and Vietnam also have claims.

In the past four years, Beijing has been building islands to bolster its sovereignty and its so-called nine-dash line claim.

Satellite imagery suggests three of the islands could be developed to conduct air combat and air surveillance activities and other islands could be used for other military purposes.

This development will potentially enable China to extend its permanent military presence further south closer to Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore.

"In my view it is too late to stop the China program in the South China Sea," Sir Angus told the dinner at the Australian National University.

He said it was important to find ways to discourage nations from acting unilaterally as well as measures to resolve territorial disputes in accordance with international law.

His comments come after tough talk from key US Trump administration officials that America might deny China access to the islands or prevent it from taking over territory in international waters.

Sir Angus also offered up some advice for the new US administration about the importance of maintaining a strong permanent presence in the Indo-Pacific region.

"Pulling back to Hawaii will leave a vacuum that will be filled by China, who will see herself as the predominant power in the region," he said.

Sir Angus believes the US also needs to engage with and make space for China.

He cited some good examples of inclusiveness - China's participation in counter-piracy operations in the Arabian Sea, the world's largest maritime warfare exercise Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) and the search for missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.

"We need more co-operation and less competition," he said.

Canada shooting

Five killed in Quebec City mosque shooting: mosque president

Swat team police officer walk aournd a mosque after a shooting in Quebec City, January 29, 2017. 

By Kevin Dougherty | QUEBEC CITY

Six people were killed and eight wounded when gunmen opened fire at a Quebec mosque during Sunday night prayers, in what Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called a "terrorist attack on Muslims".

Police said two suspects had been arrested, but gave details about them or what prompted the attack.

Initially, the mosque president said five people were killed and a witness said up to three gunmen had fired on about 40 people inside the Quebec City Islamic Cultural Centre. Police said only two people were involved in the attack.

"Six people are confirmed dead - they range in age from 35 to about 70," Quebec provincial police spokeswoman Christine Coulombe told reporters, adding eight people were wounded and 39 were unharmed.

The mosque's president, Mohamed Yangui, who was not inside when the shooting occurred, said he got frantic calls from people at evening prayers.

"Why is this happening here? This is barbaric,” he said.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said in a statement: "We condemn this terrorist attack on Muslims in a center of worship and refuge".

“Muslim-Canadians are an important part of our national fabric, and these senseless acts have no place in our communities, cities and country."

The shooting came on the weekend that Trudeau said Canada would welcome refugees, after U.S. President Donald Trump suspended the U.S. refugee program and temporarily barred citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States on national security grounds.

A Canadian federal Liberal legislator, Greg Fergus, tweeted: "This is an act of terrorism -- the result of years of sermonizing Muslims. Words matter and hateful speeches have consequences!"

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio said police were providing additional protection for mosques in that city following the Quebec shooting. "All New Yorkers should be vigilant. If you see something, say something," he tweeted.

'NOT SAFE HERE'

Like France, Quebec has struggled at times to reconcile its secular identity with a rising Muslim population, many of them from North Africa.

In June last year, a pig’s head was left on the doorstep of the cultural center.

"We are not safe here," said Mohammed Oudghiri, who normally attends prayers at the mosque in the middle-class, residential area, but did not on Sunday.

Oudghiri said he had lived in Quebec for 42 years but was now "very worried" and thinking of moving back to Morocco.

Mass shootings are rare in Canada, which has stricter gun laws than the United States, and news of the shooting sent a shockwave through mosques and community centers throughout the mostly French-language province.

"It’s a sad day for all Quebecers and Canadians to see a terrorist attack happen in peaceful Quebec City," said Mohamed Yacoub, co-chairman of an Islamic community center in a Montreal suburb.

"I hope it’s an isolated incident."

Incidents of Islamophobia have increased in Quebec in recent years. The face-covering, or niqab, became a big issue in the 2015 Canadian federal election, especially in Quebec, where the majority of the population supported a ban on it at citizenship ceremonies.

In 2013, police investigated after a mosque in the Saguenay region of the province was splattered with what was believed to be pig blood. In the neighboring province of Ontario, a mosque was set on fire in 2015, a day after an attack by gunmen and suicide bombers in Paris.

Zebida Bendjeddou, who left the Quebec City mosque earlier on Sunday evening, said the center had received threats.

"In June, they'd put a pig's head in front of the mosque. But we thought: 'Oh, they're isolated events.' We didn't take it seriously. But tonight, those isolated events, they take on a different scope," she said.

The pig’s head left on the centre’s doorstep in 2016.

 Picture: Facebook: Quebec City Islamic Cultural Centre. Source:Facebook

Bendjeddou said she had not confirmed the names of those killed, but added: "They're people we know, for sure. People we knew since they were little kids."

Why weren’t these countries included?

Debra Killalea

DONALD Trump’s executive order banning the citizens of seven countries from entering the United States is supposed to protect the nation from “radical Islamic terrorists”.

But conspicuously, the order does not apply to several other Muslim-majority countries that suffer from well documented problems with terrorism.

On Friday, Mr Trump signed the order temporarily suspending the entry of people from Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Iran, Somalia, Libya and Yemen into the US for at least 90 days.

Mr Trump’s executive order also suspended the US refugee program for 120 days and ordered his administration to develop “extreme vetting” measures for migrants from the seven countries.

However, Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Indonesia and Afghanistan were not included on the list, sparking speculation as to why. Was Mr Trump taking potential diplomatic fallout into account, or did he fail to include those nations because of his own business ties?

THE DOUBLE STANDARD

According to the American public policy institute Cato, Americans’ fear of foreign terrorists is over-inflated, as the chances of being killed in an attack committed by a foreigner are about one in 3.6 million per year.

In the past four decades, 3024 people have been killed by foreign terrorists on US soil. The September 11 attacks, perpetrated by citizens of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Lebanon, account for 98.6 per cent of those deaths. None of those countries are on Mr Trump’s list.

In fact, in that period, no American has been killed on US soil by anyone from the nations named in his executive order.

By contrast, several of the countries the president excluded are considered hotbeds of terrorism.

Just days ago, the US State Department updated a travel warning for Americans visiting Turkey, warning of an increased risk to its citizens. The country has suffered a wave of terror attacks in recent months, including the New Year’s Eve shooting at an Istanbul nightclub which left 39 revellers dead. Istanbul has been the target of many recent attacks by Islamic State and Kurdish extremist groups.

In December last year, 13 off-duty Turkish soldiers on a weekend shopping trip were killed and dozens more wounded in a car bombing. Dozens more people have been killed in other incidents in the past 12 months, including an attack which left 47 dead after a triple suicide bombing and gun attack at Istanbul’s Ataturk airport in June.

Mr Trump’s executive order also makes no mention of Saudi Arabia, despite the fact that 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers once called it home.

Pakistan is not on the banned list despite a wave of terror attacks there, and long-running accusations that it’s been a state sponsor of terrorism.

The San Bernardino massacre, in which 14 people were killed, was perpetrated by Syed Rizwan Farook, who is of Pakistani descent, and his wife Tashfeen Malik, who grew up in Saudi Arabia.

The Pulse nightclub attack in Orlando, where 49 died, was carried out by Omar Mateen, a US citizen of Afghan descent.

The Boston Marathon bombing was orchestrated by the Tsarnaev brothers, both of whom were Russian.

BUSINESS LINKS

Mr Trump has been accused of excluding certain countries from the travel ban because he has business interests in those territories.

Liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington is among those accusing Mr Trump of a conflict of interest.

It has filed a lawsuit that alleges Mr Trump is in violation of a constitutional provision that bans federal officials from accepting payments from foreign officials, The Washington Post reports.

The group’s chairman, who is a former ethics adviser to Barack Obama, tweeted that the move was unconstitutional and pointed out the apparent hypocrisy of Mr Trump’s order.

According to Bloomberg, the list of banned countries doesn’t include Muslim-majority nations where the Trump Organization has done business or pursued potential deals. This includes golf courses in the UAE as well as two luxury towers in Turkey.

In a full list Mr Trump’s perceived conflicts of interest, Bloomberg also revealed Mr Trump had business interests or ties with Egypt, Indonesia, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. In 2015, he registered eight hotel-related companies in Saudi Arabia and also has two companies in Egypt.

Pakistan and Afghanistan, both of which have suffered a spate of terror atrocities in recent years, also did not make the list.

REAL REASON BEHIND THE ORDER

Dr David Smith, of the University of Sydney United States Studies Centre, said the executive order was hypocritical in the extreme, and Mr Trump’s strategy revolved around keeping America’s strategic allies onside.

Dr Smith, a senior lecturer in American politics and foreign policy, said it wasn’t in the US’s interest for oil-rich Saudi Arabia, for example, to be included in the ban, despite it being the “land of beheadings” and having been described as “ISIS with borders”.

Nations such as Pakistan were also a strategic military ally, he noted.

Dr Smith said Mr Trump’s business interests were not the sole reason for the order.

“The fact that a lot of Americans have business interests in places like Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Turkey is another reason (along with military and political alliances) that these countries don’t get included in travel restrictions,” he said.

The seven countries listed in the executive order had long been regarded as terror hot spots under White House policy, but they were also, with the exception of Iran, “poorer” and not in control of their populations.

“The fact remains the UAE, Egypt and Turkey are relatively wealthy allies of the US,” Dr Smith said.

“They tend to get exempt from things like this because the US doesn’t want to cause offence.

“The cost to the US (from the seven) is small, so is something they can afford.”

‘OBAMA DID THE SAME THING’

In a statement today, President Trump said America was “a proud nation of immigrants” and would “continue to show compassion to those fleeing oppression”.

Mr Trump said his executive order did not amount to a “Muslim ban” and the countries affected had previously been identified as “sources of terror” by the Obama administration. He also pointed out that Mr Obama levelled a “similar” ban against refugees from Iraq in 2011.

“This is not about religion — this is about terror and keeping our country safe,” Mr Trump said today.

“We will again be issuing visas to all countries once we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure policies over the next 90 days.”

Mr Trump highlighted that there were at least 40 Muslim-majority countries that were not affected by this order.

Dr Smith said it was true that Mr Obama banned visas to Iraqis, but it was only for six months.

While the Obama White House, as did previous administrations, maintained a longstanding policy to identify all seven countries as terrorist hot spots, citizens from the other six nations were never banned from entering the country.

Dr Smith said Mr Trump’s comments on Mr Obama were “misleading” because this ban is much wider in scope but also because it had also included permanent residents of the United States, which is totally unprecedented.

The Department of Homeland Security has now retracted that part.

WHAT IT MEANS FOR AUSTRALIA

Dr Jiyoung Song, a director and research fellow at the Lowy Insitute’s Migration and Border Control Policy Project, said Mr Trump’s ban was hypocritical because it didn’t apply to other hot beds of terrorism.

“Trump is delivering on his campaign promises to ban Muslim immigrants,” Dr Song said.

“Some of those (orders) are temporary and some indefinite, but it’s a completely discriminatory and racist policy.”

Dr Song said while Australia had been given assurances that its refugee deal with the US would go ahead despite the executive order, it was now a question of how many would be accepted.

Under the deal reached with President Barack Obama last year, Australia agreed to take refugees from Central America if the US accepted a number of refugees in offshore detention centres. Dr Song said she expected the US wouldn’t take any of the single men on Manus but would look more towards taking refugees of a Christian background or families.

“Malcolm Turnbull will save face as the deal will still go ahead, but the critical issue will be the number of refugees taken,” she said.

‘THE WORLD IS ANGRY AS IT GETS’

Last week, in his first interview since taking office, Mr Trump told US broadcaster ABC News he didn’t believe his executive order would spark a backlash from the Muslim world.

ABC journalist David Muir questioned whether it was a Muslim ban, something Mr Trump denied. Instead, he insisted the executive order was about “countries that have tremendous terror”.

“You’re looking at people that come in, in many cases, in some cases with evil intentions. I don’t want that,” he said. “They’re ISIS (Islamic State). They’re coming under false pretence. I don’t want that.”

When asked why only certain countries would be included, Mr Trump said it would be “extreme vetting in all cases”.

“We are excluding certain countries. But for other countries we’re gonna have extreme vetting,” Mr Trump said. “It’s going to be very hard to come in. Right now it’s very easy to come in. It’s gonna be very, very hard. I don’t want terror in this country.”

Mr Muir also asked Mr Trump if he was concerned this move would spark anger in Muslim countries.

“There’s plenty of anger right now,” the President said. “How can you have more?

“The world is a mess. The world is as angry as it gets. What? You think this is gonna cause a little more anger? The world is an angry place.”

debra.killalea@news.com.au