There are two ways you can tell when moonbats are losing, one is subtle the other is obvious. A subtle indicator is how the entire MSM apparatus switched (literally overnight on Thursday) from calling President Trump’s executive order a “Muslim ban” to calling it a “Travel Ban”.
The more transparently obvious indicator is when someone like swamp defender Jeffrey Toobin tells his fellow travelers: ‘not so fast on that celebration there folks‘.
[…] The botched launch of the order, as well as the President’s crude attempts to disparage the judges who evaluated it, certainly poisoned the atmosphere in which the case was heard. But it’s clear that the Justice Department will keep pressing the defense of the executive order, and the plaintiffs’ celebrations, while understandable, may turn out to be premature. –link–
The best hope for the moonbat’s position against Trump -in final disposition- was expedited travel to the U.S. Supreme Court while there’s still a 4-4 split.
As we pointed out yesterday, the ninth circuit victory to the plaintiff’s side of the argument puts the leverage of requesting a SCOTUS review in the hands of the Trump administration – and they are in no hurry to get there just yet.
U.S. President Donald Trump said late on Friday aboard Air Force One that he is considering issuing a new travel ban executive order, while White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus said the administration could still escalate a legal dispute over Trump’s original travel ban to the Supreme Court.
[…] In a surprise visit with reporters aboard Air Force One en route to Florida from Washington, Trump said he was considering “a brand new order” that could be issued as soon as Monday or Tuesday if he decides to move in that direction.
[…] Earlier, a White House official had said that the administration was not planning to escalate the legal dispute to the Supreme Court, but Priebus later on Friday told reporters that such a move remained a possibility.
“Every single court option is on the table, including an appeal of the Ninth Circuit decision on the TRO to the Supreme Court, including fighting out this case on the merits,” Priebus said.
“And, in addition to that, we’re pursuing executive orders right now that we expect to be enacted soon that will further protect Americans from terrorism.” –link–
For all intents and purposes President Trump can effectively implement the national security ‘travel ban’ through the authority of executive policy by outlining principles of “extreme vetting”.
“Extreme vetting” can be just about any national security enhancement the Trump administration determines. For example, if there’s no U.S. embassy to issue a travel visa in the country of origin, a simple flex of a rule mandating that basic requirement can effectively rule out hope for a travel permit from 5 of the 7 countries within the original order.
Underlying the strength of President Trump’s position, and in a highly unusual example in that regard, we find a judge within the ninth circuit court of appeals requesting a vote for an en banc review of the originating appellate three person decision. Neither the plaintiff (Washington state) nor the defendant (Trump DOJ) requested a full ninth circuit review (en banc decision).
The victorious plaintiff would have no motivation for such a review, and the DOJ doesn’t need to rush any appeal given the alternative avenues to accomplish the same goals.
In the interim Democrats, their activists and the liberally-minded judiciary are on the hook if any terrorist event takes place where U.S. national security is compromised. Eventually the case might -if Trump DOJ wants it- make it to the supreme court and the Executive authority will be upheld. Politically it is a win/win/win scenario for President Trump.
In the larger context, if the Trump DOJ had won the ninth circuit appeal they would have been in a weaker position because the plaintiff (Washington State) would have cause for an automatic appeal to SCOTUS. By losing in the ninth circuit Trump holds the leverage for next steps. It is an odd albeit not unfamiliar situation.
Historically, in both the George Zimmerman legal case and the Freddie Gray legal case the aggregate activists wanted their side to lose. It’s easier, better, for BLM activists, to frame the legal system as broken when they lose. Losing provides the conduit to shout: ‘See, the system is broken’. This is why CTH always framed those prior cases as politically motivated, not actually legal cases.
Politics, not law, drove both of those prior cases to court and the subsequent trials. The legal outcomes were entirely predictable and correct. However, the losing side leveraged their loss to fuel a false narrative and change a moment into a movement.
In an odd dynamic, in this situation the roles are uniquely reversed. Politically, Trump wins by losing in the Ninth Circuit Appeal and everyone sees how corrupt the system is. However, unlike Zimmerman or Gray, in the final disposition – the law will fall rightly upon the side of Trump. Jeffrey Toobin is one of a multitude of legal analysts advance signaling this eventual outcome to those who will have to swallow the bitter pill.
While all this is going on President Trump can confidently enjoy his weekend; and in full relaxation and comfort mode, map out the next aspect to a winning strategy.