The travel ban or one man one vote.

Where things stand.


1. President Trump issued an executive order barring travelers from 7 Islamic countries with active jihadist movements. The reason for the ban is that there is no adequate procedure to check them out to make sure they are not jihadists.


2. Liberals immediately gone to the courts. Three separate federal courts came back with three separate opinions.


a) The Boston court refused to renew a temporary restraining order and noted that President Trump acted within his constitutional authority;


b) The LA court issued a temporary restraining order against part of the travel ban without considering or commenting on the President's authority;


c) The Seattle court(Judge Robart) issued a temporary restraining order and made it nationwide. Again, no comment on the President's constitutional authority.


3. Judge Robart argues that the plaintiffs had met the standard required for the issuance of a temporary restraining order. Namely, that the travel ban would cause them irreparable harm, their case is likely succeed, the balance of the arguments tip in their favor and that a temporary restraining order is in the public interest. (I had rephrased some of the ruling in common English).


4. The Judge's declarations are both incomplete and incorrect. The President does have the authority to determine who comes into this country. The harm caused by refusing entry to people from jihadist countries (i.e. missed lectures, reduction in some revenues) is far outweighed by the need for public safety. The indiscriminate admission of anyone from the areas in question is not in the public interest. Nor are we sure that the plaintiffs will succeed in their arguments.


5. It is entirely proper to question executive orders by a President. We have the EOs of the Previous President as examples of harmful orders. However, in this case the Judge is plainly wrong and his TRO should be withdrawn.