It is hard to imagine how embarrassing it must be to have a primitive in chief as one's client:
. . . .The Government asks this Court for emergency relief that is procedurally improper and substantively unnecessary. It seeks to leapfrog its own pending motion and appeal in the Ninth Circuit and obtain an expansion of the stay this Court issued just three weeks ago. And it contends this extraordinary relief is appropriate because the District Court’s recent modification order has “eviscerated” this Court’s stay.
That is nonsense. The District Court faithfully applied this Court’s opinion, holding that “close relatives” like grandparents and nieces are permitted to enter, and recognizing that the charities, non-profits, and churches that have made a formal, contractual commitment to shelter and clothe refugees would suffer “concrete hardship” if those refugees are excluded. . . .
The Government’s complaint boils down to the belief that any interpretation that meaningfully diminishes the practical consequence of its bans must be wrong. But the lower courts and this Court explicitly sought to minimize these practical consequences to the extent they inflict concrete harms on American individuals and entities. . . .
There is no reason for this Court to take the extraordinary step of granting a stay, certiorari before judgment, or mandamus relief. The District Court’s opinion is correct. And, in any event, the Ninth Circuit — where the Government has filed an almost identical set of requests — is fully capable of fulfilling its normal role as the first line of appellate review. The Government’s motion should be denied. . . .
In a remarkable bit of doublespeak, the Government suggests. . . [a section of the INA] supports its distinction between “close” and “extended” family. But the provision explicitly refers to siblings-in-law, grandparents, and grandchildren as “close family”; there is no ambiguity about it.
Other provisions of the INA likewise permit persons in the United States to sponsor their “grandchildren,” “grandparents,” “nieces,” and “nephews” for immigration or naturalization — in each instance indicating that Congress believed such persons have a concrete and cognizable stake in their relatives’ entry. . . .
[SEGUE -- Mr. Trump tweets, on stunning health care defeat, 07.17.2017:] . . .We will return. . . .
He presumably was aware (when he tweeted) that Gen. Douglas MacArthur said "I shall return" -- when he escaped the Philippines (as the islands fell tragically into the hands of the enemy), in one of the darker moments of WW II, in the Pacific theater.
How dare he equate his own tiny-handed hubris, and vain political ineptitude -- to the deep purple valor, of men who bled and died there, and on Corregidor, to protect Gen. MacArthur's retreat? [The Allies did eventually retake the islands -- but 45 is a. . . pig -- for trying to draw any parallel.]
What a complete coward Mr. Trump must be -- if he feels the need to equate his own obvious idiocy and endless prevarications, on ObamaCare -- to the courageous General's words, in a real, live battle, with real honorable enlisted men literally dying around him, to help him escape safely, to. . . "fight another day".
What a. . . small, impotent man-child, indeed. . . . I am well-beyond being disgusted.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment