The courts are doing it. President Trump is doing it. So why can't we? Let's argue about whether Trump's travel ban on seven predominantly Muslim countries is legal, using some of the very arguments heard in a San Francisco federal appeals courtroom this week. Those judges are preparing to make a ruling that could decide its …
 
The 5-Minute Fix
Keeping up with politics is easy now
 
 

The courts are doing it. President Trump is doing it. So why can't we? Let's argue about whether Trump's travel ban on seven predominantly Muslim countries is legal, using some of the very arguments heard in a San Francisco federal appeals courtroom this week. Those judges are preparing to make a ruling that could decide its fate.

Baraah Alawdi, originally from Yemen, poses for photos next to an unidentified artist's mannequin placed outside of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)

1) On whether the ban has precedent

If you agree with the ban, say: In 2015, Congress designated these seven countries on Trump's list as having problems with terrorism.

If you disagree with the ban, say: Those countries had restrictions on visa waiver programs — not travel bans — and some top congressional Democrats didn't agree with even that limitation, because they thought it relied too heavily on a person's nationality.

2) On whether the ban can save lives

If you agree with the ban, say: Well, quote the president. That's basically what the Justice Department lawyer did when 9th Circuit Court judges asked him that question.

TrumpBan

If you disagree with the ban, say: There is no direct evidence tying any of these countries to terrorism. Plus, the government already screens people from these countries who want to enter the U.S. “Is there any reason for us to think that there’s a real risk or that circumstances have changed such that there’s a real risk?” asked Judge Richard Clifton, a Bush appointee.

3) On whether the ban is an unconstitutional religious test

If you agree with the ban, say: The vast majority of Muslims would not be affected by this, as Clifton also pointed out.

If you disagree with the ban, say: Or point, rather, to former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Trump adviser, who recently said a religious test is what the president wanted :"[W]hen Trump first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up. He said: ‘Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.’ ” During the campaign, Trump also often used the term “Muslim ban.

You'll never guess what side Trump comes down on all this

social_card [Wed Feb 08 2017 16-32-03 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time)]

Nobody expects Trump to be rooting for the courts to knock down his ban. It is, after all, his signature policy achievement so far, meant to make good on a signature campaign promise to get tough on terrorism.

But Trump isn't just sharing his opinion on the ban with us. He's not-so-subtly threatening the entire American court system if they don't side with him, including the above comment he made Wednesday in a speech to law enforcement. Also, he's tweeted a lot about this.

TrumpJudge

ADVERTISEMENT
 

Translation, via The Fix's Aaron Blake: “Trump is basically saying: That's a nice reputation you've got there. It'd be a shame if something happened to it.”

Republicans L-O-V-E Trump's travel ban

Here's some data that could help us understand why Trump is willing to throw out norms about separation of powers if it could mean saving his ban. While America is split down the middle on if his ban is a good thing, WaPo's polling guru Emily Guskin found that an incredibly high number of Republicans support it.

TravelBanPoll

It's not just the travel ban Republicans like. They are also incredibly supportive of several of Trump's key policies, like a border wall:

BorderWallPoll

And renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement:

NAFTAPoll

So, yes Trump's approval ratings are historically low overall — an average 43 percent of Americans approve of the job he's doing so far. But on many major policies, Republicans are giving him the thumbs up.

19 things to know about Rule 19

Just kidding. This newsletter is only supposed to take 5 minutes!

Here are three things you should know about the Senate rule that Republicans invoked Tuesday night to get Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to stop talking. The reason? Republicans said she had violated an official rule — Rule 19 — not to impugn the character of another senator, as she opposed Sen. Jeff Sessions's (R-Ala.) nomination to be attorney general.

1) Rule 19 was enacted century ago after a fistfight between senators (yes, for real)

(Library of Congress)

(Library of Congress)

2) It's almost never actually invoked. It's time-consuming (and attention-grabbing) for the Senate to come together and vote a senator out of line. That's why lots of other senators have indeed said not-so-nice things about their colleagues on the Senate floor without the rule book crashing down on them.

3) Speaking of attention, getting tsk-tsked by the Senate has been great for Warren. “Nevertheless, she persisted” has become a battle cry of sorts for feminists and the left, and Warren's forthcoming book — announced hours before her Senate speech — is already topping charts. More 2020 buzz, anyone?

Tapper_No_3

Jake Tapper has some thoughts.

 

 
If you want to get The 5-Minute Fix in your inbox three afternoons a week, sign up here. And click here if you want to ask me a question about politics, send me a gif or give me a compliment.

Still want more politics in your life? Read these awesome pieces:
Ted Cruz: ‘The Democrats are the party of the Ku Klux Klan’
The day after Sen. Elizabeth Warren was rebuked while making a speech criticizing Jeff Sessions, Sen. Ted Cruz blasted Democrats.
 
Sean Spicer just set an extraordinary standard for criticizing military operations under Trump
Spicer says questioning the Yemen raid does a “disservice” to the Navy SEAL who died.
 
Why you should pity Sean Spicer
His boss is always watching and judging. And his boss is the president of the United States.
 
Can Democrats get used to all the losing that lies ahead?
Democrats can't really win anything right now. But their base demands they try.
 
 
‘The state is hurting.’ One North Carolina Republican’s appeal to get rid of the bathroom bill before it’s too late
With news the NCAA could block tournaments from being held in North Carolina for six years, there's a new urgency to consider repealing the bathroom law.
 
Melania Trump’s $150 million libel suit is based on a falsehood
The first lady claims the British tabloid accused her of being a sex worker. That's not what happened.
 
John Oliver doesn’t think he’ll get deported — but says Trump could toss him like ‘a tea bag’
"Having a green card used to be enough,” John Oliver said, “and yet what we saw with that executive order on immigration — that debacle — things are not what they were supposed to be."
 
ADVERTISEMENT
 
Recommended for you
 
News as it breaks
Get immediate email when major national or political news breaks. You can also sign up for email alerts on: World News, Economy/Business, Technology, Health/Science/Environment, Entertainment or Sports at washingtonpost.com/newsletters.
Sign Up »
 
     
 
©2017 The Washington Post, 1301 K St NW, Washington DC 20071