Day 22: February 10, 2017

More hope.

Last night, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the restraining order for Executive Order 13769 “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.” (The Government requested a decision to stay the restraining order.)

Full text is here.

The single statement I want to make today is that I feel so relieved to see our government system of checks and balance at work, successfully, as my one fear of this presidency is the power grab that has been so obviously attempted (and is ongoing) by the Republican Congress, led by Mitch McConnell, and by the frightening trinity in the White House (Donald Trump, Steve Bannon, Kellyanne Conway).

This is no way means that we should “give up the fight.” It means I’m feeling better about the integrity of the system. But I also believe that the fourth branch of government — the people — must continue to be vigilant. Because if we’re not, then nothing will go to the courts. So, stay the course, people, it’s working!

There were essentially two things that I, personally, focused on in this case.

  1. The President’s assertion that his decisions are “unreviewable.” Why? Because it sets him up with too much power to make sweeping decisions with the stroke of a pen, that impact human beings who have lives, loved ones, and property.
  2. Specifically, the impact to people who have already been granted visas, green cards, and permission to stay in the United States, and especially those who are situated here already with homes, jobs, families, friends, and “stuff” that simply belongs to them. Many of them were immediately prevented to returning to their homes and lives – what are they supposed to do? They’ve already been cleared. If there is a concern that they are a risk, bring them home, and continue your vetting.

So, after reading the decision, in its entirety, I offer this easy-to-follow (although admittedly with some personal bias likely) interpretation:

Government (aka, Trump): “You aren’t the boss of me! I’m the freaking President, and what I say goes! You don’t have the right to question anything I decide!”

9th Circuit Court: “um… yes we do.”

States (aka, the People): “Hey, you can’t just leave people stranded and take away their life, liberty, or property without Due Process!”

Government: “Of course we can! These people aren’t American citizens, therefore they have not rights, so we can treat them any way we want.”

9th Circuit Court: “um, no you can’t. They have Constitutional Rights.”

Government: “But, White House counsel already said the Executive Order won’t apply to lawful residents!”

9th Circuit Court: “Seriously? Who is this guy? He’s not the boss of you, and in fact, he’s not really the boss of any of the Executive Departments.”

States: “Religious discrimination! This is a Muslim ban. Trump said so.”

9th Circuit Court: “Good point. Looks like maybe. Let’s talk about this some more.”

Government: “Tell them to stop it and let me do what I want!”

9th Circuit Court: “Nope. DENIED!”

Day 21: February 9, 2017

Interesting week, but mostly a week of observation and listening.

There has been live audio from the hearings regarding the Executive Order, also known as the ‘travel ban’ or ‘Muslim ban.’ The door has been opened to argue ‘intent,’ which means that they’ll be looking at things that Trump said during the Campaign, and outside of the exact wording of the Executive Order. The court may also have some leeway to reword the order so that it is clear and ‘legal.’


On Wednesday, Trump used his @POTUS Twitter account to retweet his own tweet (from his personal @realDonaldTrump account) accusing Nordstrom of treating his daughter, Ivanka, unfairly. Nordstrom had announced that they would no longer carry Ivanka’s products, as they were not selling well.

This earned Trump some air time, from discussions about whether or not it was appropriate to use the Office of the President to interact with Nordstrom and make such an accusation, to calling him a “helicopter parent” to his adult child.

My response:

The issue with a decline in sales is certainly likely to a voluntary boycott across the country. Many people feel that Ivanka was a big part of her father’s campaign, and has been involved in calls at the White House, and therefore deserves a level of censure, and have pointedly refused to buy her products.

My opinion – it’s much better to boycott specific products (e.g., Ivanka’s products) than to boycott the store that carries them. The store is a business, and stocks products from a variety of businesses. To boycott the entire store would harm other businesses in the process. By targeting the one set of products, Nordstrom, and businesses like them, can be left alone to make business decisions based on product response, without having to get involved in politics.


The Big Story

Real outrage was caused on Tuesday night when the hearings began for the confirmation of Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. It has already been in the news for some time that Coretta Scott King wrote a letter back in 1986 that kept Sessions from becoming a federal judge. Senator Elizabeth Warren stood up to speak, and began reading the letter. Because Jeff Sessions is currently a Senator, Mitch McConnell (Majority Leader,  and he doesn’t want you to forget it) stopped her. He said she “has impugned the motives and conduct of our colleague from Alabama, as warned by the chair. I call the Senator to order under the provision of Rule 19.” Within minutes, she was told to “sit down,” and thereafter was not allowed to say anything on the floor of the Senate for the next 24 hours.

Mitch McConnell’s Twitter banner. I think he really wants us to know he’s the Senate Majority Leader…

Apparently, Rule 19 was created to keep Senators from damaging each other’s character. So, thoughts:

— If a letter stating factual information impugns the character of a Senator who is up for the position of Attorney General, we should probably listen.

— This is a hearing to see if he’s qualified, and the right choice for Attorney General. This isn’t a discussion about differing opinions about a bill. Sessions shouldn’t even be viewed as a Senator in this case. He’s a prospective AG.

Results:

Senator Warren immediately went outside of the Senate Chamber and read the full text of the letter, on video, which was streamed live on Facebook. The video immediately went viral. The video is the first thing I viewed when I woke up to on Wednesday morning.

Millions of people across America read, linked, tweeted, and retweeted Coretta Scott King’s Letter (you can read it here).

Other Democratic Senators stepped in opposition to Senator Warren’s censure. It was noted that there was a time when Leader McConnell was called a liar on the floor of the Senate, but Rule 19 was not invoked. Additional examples were given. Then, several (male) senators read the letter, and were allowed to do so without censure. This has further cast aspersions on McConnell’s actions, as a Southern White Man shutting up a woman speaking out.

A quote from Mitch McConnell became a new rallying cry for feminists and protesters across the country. He said, “She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted.”


Twitter went crazy.

#LetHerSpeak

#LetLizSpeak

#NeverthelessShePersisted

And some memes were inspired.