Reviewing the executive order and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling.

The Trump administration and many terrorist experts believe that terrorists in nations with no central control, no real documentation to assess via a vetting process can get to the USA in a way that is dangerous.

Let talk hypothetically, a terrorist could board a plane in one of the 7 countries that fall under the executive order: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, with a fake passport then fly to a European western country, change planes and fly on to a city in the United States, let’s say San Francisco.

Nobody in the 7 countries mentioned will vet that person properly or at all.  So essentially he would arrive here with a very good chance of entry.

Because of this President Trump wants to impose stronger security oversight, dare I say extreme vetting, on the 7 nations that President Obama identified as “countries of concern”.

Is that such a bad idea?

Keep in mind the courts do not see the President's Daily Brief (PDB).  The President's Daily Briefing, is a Top Secret document produced and given each morning at 7:45 am to the President of the United States. Producing and presenting the brief is the responsibility of the Director of National Intelligence, whose office is tasked with fusing intelligence from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the National Security Agency (NSA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other members of the U.S. Intelligence Community.

There is a consensus of constitutional lawyers and scholars who unequivocally state that Federal law is on the president side.  They point to Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 which states:

"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens ..."

Does U.S. law seem pretty clear and unambiguous to you?

Pointing to this law President Trump suspended immigration in six countries for 90 days and stopped refuges from entering the United States from Syria indefinitely.

The liberals do not like this executive order so they decided go judge shopping and found the states of Minnesota and Washington.  Why Minnesota and Washington, because their attorney's general challenged the travel ban.  Those AG’s believed that it harmed individuals and businesses and was unconstitutional because it targeted Muslims.  Also any lower court ruling in the state of Washington would be appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the most ideological left of any court on the United States.

They then found a federal judge in Washington, Judge James Robart, who blocked President Trump's order.  I remind you that this judge issued his ruling a mere two hours after a federal appeals court upheld the executive order unanimously and only heard 15 minutes of oral arguments.

Now on to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, of which I will inform you that 86% of the cases from this court which were reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012 were overturned.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals three judges ruled that there is no urgency to stop travel from the seven countries, and they believed there are strong arguments on both sides that should be reviewed.  In the ruling the court wrote:

"In short, although courts owe considerable deference to the President’s policy determinations with respect to immigration and national security, it is beyond question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action, ...[The] Government has not offered any evidence or even an explanation of how the national security concerns that justified those designations, which triggered visa requirements, can be extrapolated to justify an urgent need for the Executive Order to be immediately reinstated."

The three judges also wrote in their opinion that no irreparable injury would be caused by a stay of the president's order, and they believe that the courts should eventually decide whether the order is constitutional or not.

The funny and/or sad part is that the three judges from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals basically believe that more legal vetting is needed of the terrorist vetting plan.

So what is the next step or steps, President Trump could:

  • President Trump could call for an “en banc” appeal and send it back to the Full 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

President Trump’s Justice Department could appeal the three-judge panel's decision to the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. An "en banc" appeal, would allow Trump's legal team to appeal to 11 judges who would re-hear the case and issue a new ruling.

Good luck with that President Trump since the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is the most liberal court in the country.  It is sad to say but in today’s court ideologue trumps constitutional law.

  • President Trump could send the case back to Washington State

The President could allow the appeals court ruling to stand and return to the federal judge in Seattle who initially blocked Trump's plan a week ago. He could do this because the ruling from the 9th Circuit only deals with the temporary restraining order issued by District Judge James Robart on Feb. 3. Temporary restraining orders are designed to be brief, generally lasting about 14 days. The next step would be a preliminary injunction, which can remain in place indefinitely.

  • President Trump could go to Supreme Court

The administration could appeal directly to the Supreme Court. That could be a difficult because the court remains short one justice and deadlocked 4-4 between conservatives and liberals. A 4-4 tie would mean the lower court ruling stands.  It takes 5 votes are needed to overturn the lower court's decision.

  • President Trump could write an entirely new executive order

In their ruling the appeals court panel gave the impression in their ruling that a scaled-back executive order that did not bar all citizens from the seven countries might have a better shot at clearing legal hurdles.

What do you think the President should do?

Also if there were an attack perpetrated by someone from one of the 7 countries that the Obama Administration labeled “countries of concern” and the Trump Administration included in their executive order, who has blood on their hands?

The Live with Renk Show airs Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to noon. To let me know your thoughts during the show please call (269) 441-9595