Court system supposed to protect us from overbearing politicos, but no more

Thus far, the federal court system has been sympathetic to Chicago in striking down efforts by President Donald J. Trump to eliminate the city’s laws that prevent its local police from being used by federal immigration officials to supplement their own efforts in harassing people.

The high court now Trump's rubber stamp?

But a part of me is constantly reminding myself that we haven’t heard the final word yet, and it’s always possible the ultimate court will come down in favor of the president – just because he’s the president from a certain political party.

WILL THE SUPREME Court of the United States use its 5-4 conservative-leaning majority and ultimately feel like issuing an order striking down “sanctuary cities” because it’s the desire of Donald Trump?

There already are those people who think the Supreme Court is inclined (possibly Wednesday morning) to rule against Illinois political interests in a case now pending as to whether public employee labor unions have a right to require government workers to join and pay dues.

Then, there’s the ruling the high court made Tuesday morning that says Trump’s efforts to impose travel restrictions against people from certain Middle East countries is acceptable – no matter how much many complain about its immorality, and how lower courts have ruled it is illegal.

Could “sanctuary cities” wind up facing the same fate some day? It is an issue yet to come before the high court. Yet it could also be a significant issue of sort come 2019.

TRUMP: Can't govern w/o allies in charge

THE SUPREME COURT, in the opinion issued Tuesday, said the president has the authority to get involved through executive orders in immigration policy, and also said it wasn’t terribly interested in hearing arguments about discrimination against Muslims.

But in the part that particularly amazes me, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the court’s opinion, “we (the court) express no view on the soundness of the (Trump immigration) policy.”

Meaning, the idea of the judicial branch providing a balance (specifically, being the force that keeps government officials from overstepping their bounds when they react too far) isn’t one that the high court particularly feels like honoring.

That is a scary thought, if you think about it.

ROBERTS: Backing up the president

BECAUSE THE MAJORITY of our society that is relying on the concept of “checks and balances” to keep a Trump presidency from imposing serious, and lasting, harm could find themselves let down beyond belief.

Just like what could happen in the case of Janus vs. AFSCME. That’s the case based on a lawsuit originally filed by Mark Janus, an Illinois government employee who resents the idea that he had to join the labor union in the first place.

His lawsuit seeks to strike down any such membership requirements in order to have his job, and theoretically could require the union to have to go back to each of its members and seek their permission to charge them union dues.

With anti-labor forces hoping they can persuade many workers to refuse to pay up, meaning the unions would lose significant revenues and be undermined to the point where they would become ineffectual.

MANY THINK THE current partisan leanings of the court will result in Janus prevailing – with those of us inclined to support labor hoping for a partisan political miracle.

Will union take a blow from high court?i

Which also is why I’m wondering what will become of the sanctuary cities issue – which thus far the courts have said the federal government is overstepping its bounds in trying to cut off federal funding to those cities wishing to protect all people from police harassment.

That is how it is perceived – as in local cops getting involved in immigration issues that they technically have no jurisdiction over and no particular knowledge about.

Those who support the “sanctuary city” concept believe it’s a matter of federal immigration officials doing their own jobs when it comes to immigration law. Will partisan politics cause the high court to ultimately disagree?

  -30-

Trump’s ‘travel’ ban to create a national headache of international proportions

The Supreme Court of the United States is allowing President Donald J. Trump a political victory of sorts, saying they will hear arguments on the legitimacy of the “travel” ban on people from certain select countries with overwhelmingly Islamic populations.
 

TRUMP: Loopier world leaders? Sadly!

This is seen by more sensible people as Trump’s ham-handed way of trying to keep certain types of people out of the country – and perhaps a first step toward eventually deporting the ones like them that already exist here.

SO THERE IS concern from some here that the nation’s high court this week altered the previous rulings from federal appeals courts that said the president’s executive orders on the issue – which were amongst his first actions as president – were overstepping.

Of course, I’ve also heard from some law school professor-type people who say that this is the high court’s way of knocking the issue down. Since the Trump executive order only called for the restrictions to be in effect for 90 days.

Meaning that by the time the high court hears arguments on the case come its autumn work load, the order’s impact will already cease to have existed. If the high court rejects the idea, it will be like it never really existed in the first place.

Except that the presidential order put out the symbolic impression to the world that we’re headed back for isolationist ideals of the past – which might not be so bad except that it’s also clear Trump expects to maintain the international influence that the U.S. carries on issues.

USUALLY, THE PRICE of having such influence on foreign affairs is seen as having to get involved in the world’s problems. It’s as though Trump thinks he can bark orders at world leaders without having to carry any of the responsibility usually involved.

Does Trump really think the whole globe is a television set for “The Apprentice” where he can shout out “You’re Fired!” at anybody and everybody he wishes – and think that they’re obligated to listen to him?

Personally, I’m curious to see how this order gets implemented, because the high court did impose some restrictions. It seems the only people who are banned outright from being able to enter the United States are the ones from the certain countries in the Middle East who cannot document some sort of personal tie to someone who already is in this country.

Sound simple and straightforward? Of course it isn’t, and only a fool would think it is.

BECAUSE THERE ARE going to be so many interpretations of just what constitutes a personal tie.

Does it have to be a blood relation? Just how close of a relation does it have to be? Suppose someone can show a third- or fourth-cousin tie to someone in this country whom they’ve never met?

What about instances where people’s families have personal ties to other families and would want to offer up support? I can envision some pretty loose claims being put forth by those people wishing to enter the United States – many coming from countries where the level of insanity is so high that it is the so-called “crazy” people they’re trying to escape.

Pretty sad if you have such a lot in life where coming to a country with an electorate loony enough to pick Donald J. as its leader is an improvement, yet sadly enough, that is the case for some people.

IT’S ALSO GOING to become complicated by those bureaucratic types who will want to take on excessively strict interpretations of what a close tie to a U.S. resident actually means.

We’re talking about immigration, where there are those in our society who are all for keeping out anyone not exactly like themselves, and who view many legitimately married couples as not worthy of being in this country.

I’m sure the coming few months (beginning Thursday, which is when the new Trump executive order will take effect) are bound to produce tales of horror and woe caused by some bureaucrat whose nativist tendencies will run amok.

And even if the Supreme Court ultimately chooses to knock down Trump’s tendencies (never a sure thing), we’re bound to get a few anecdotes in the near future of our nation giving in to its worst tendencies.

  -30-

Assuaging Trump backers’ egos create incidents at O’Hare, airports elsewhere

It was a depressing mood that spread this weekend at airports throughout our nation, including at Chicago's O’Hare International Airport. What with the number of people suddenly impacted by the executive order imposed by new President Donald J. Trump.

Welcome to Chicago? More like, Drop Dead!!!!! from Donald Trump, if you happen to be Arab

As in the one that put sudden restrictions on people from select Arab and Middle Eastern nations being able to enter the United States.

THIS WEEKEND BECAME the first practical impact of the new era that our nation has moved into – and which is one that is totally in line with the sentiments of the 46 percent of the electorate that actually voted for Trump to be president.

All across the nation at airports that accept international flights there were people being stuck in customs and detained indefinitely. A federal judge in Brooklyn, N.Y., issued an order Saturday night preventing them from being deported and they eventually were released and allowed to disperse amongst the U.S. populace, but their long-term fate is uncertain.

It didn’t matter that many of these people had relatives living within the United States with valid visas or full citizenship. Or that some of them had dual citizenship with other nations (such as Great Britain) that are full-fledged U.S. allies.

Saturday night, there were reports of some 18 people being stuck at O’Hare for hours on end, with similar numbers being found at other airports across the country. There was bureaucratic nonsense, and some even had their Facebook accounts inspected to get clues as to their political leanings. Activists upset about this had the International terminal blocked Saturday night, complicating the ability of people to get into, and out of, the airport. They didn't leave until the early hours of Sunday.

TRUMP: Appeasing the 46 percent

WHAT A GREAT way for our nation – which likes to hold itself up as the ideal that nations around the globe ought to strive to be like – to greet people.

“Drop dead, rag head!,” is what we might as well be telling them. Barack Obama felt like a long-distant memory Saturday night.

It’s not just people of Middle Eastern ethnic backgrounds who got detained (out of suspicion that they’re Islamic, which just naturally makes them subversive to the U.S. way of life, according to the nativist kooks). There were news reports of anybody coming from Iran getting extra scrutiny, regardless of who they are or what their backgrounds may be.

OBAMA: Did he ever really happen?

All of this is coming about because of the executive order that Trump signed a couple of days following his orders (border walls and sanctuary cities) aimed at harassing the Latino segment of our society.

THESE ARAB-ORIENTED ORDERS are the result of the Trump action that singles out people of seven specific nations – Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen – who will not be able to legally enter the United States for at least 90 days, and Trump on Sunday insisted his order remains in effect although aides are now talking down some of its enforcement provisions.

In theory, that measure is because U.S. officials will spend the next three months concocting policies concerning immigration and travel back and forth from Middle Eastern nations. Just like they're supposedly abolishing the Affordable Care Act and we should trust them to come up with a replacement policy in the future.

Although I suspect many of those who think healthcare reform was subversive also are of a particularly nativist and xenophobic bent want who want to believe these Middle East nations are producing all the “radical Islamic terrorists” who are a threat to our society’s existence.

Words of advice particularly relevant this weekend

And you had better use that particular “radical Islamic terrorist” phrase to describe those people, or else face the wrath of the ideologues as they concoct a policy to restrict your further existence within this society!

IN THE LONG run, I realize this is a short-term series of incidents this weekend. Although we shouldn’t think these are moments that these individuals impacted now will someday be capable of laughing about. Even though the Department of Homeland Security is trying to downplay Saturday's harassment by saying fewer than 1 percent of international travelers were impacted.

It’s embarrassing to our national reputation. It undermines any claims to superiority we might try to make about ourselves. It really is pathetic that we’re giving in to the most paranoid people of our society and letting their fears dictate our federal policy.

It’s giving reinforcement to the notion that the campaign phrase “Make America Great Again” really means some warped vision of what our nation never was, except in the minds of those with the most nativist of extremes. To which Trump is now working in high gear to appease; and which groups like the ACLU will have to work overtime to combat.

And the sad part will be those people amongst us who not only knowingly voted for this, but fully approve. Because it fits their vision, to which the only phrase I can truly think of to describe it is, “un-American!”

  -30-