Blog Stage 3

Washington post- Opinion- If abortion rights fall, LGBT next.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/if-abortion-rights-fall-lgbt-rights-are-next/2017/02/22/7d976f5c-f479-11e6-b9c9-e83fce42fb61_story.html?utm_term=.739d3de5f38e

In the opinion post, “If Abortion Rights Fall, LGBT Rights are Next” the authors implore the “first they came for…” argument that Trump and his administration will attempt to fulfill campaign promises to undo abortion rights. Further, if successful, we could expect LGBT attacks through the same legal channels. They make their appeal to not only the LGBT community but anyone sympathetic to both interest groups.

It was submitted through the Washington Post by Nancy Northup who is the chief executive of the Center for Reproductive Rights, and Rachel B. Tiven, the chief executive of Lambda Legal. They open the article stating that they represent organizations that have fought and won Supreme Court cases protecting LGBT and reproductive rights, specifically: Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015 and Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt in 2016.

Trumps stance on both interest groups is well known. During Trump’s campaign he was blatant about his opposition to both the Obergefell result which secured equal rights for same-sex marriages, and promised to put a supreme court judge on the bench who would be pro-life. As the vetting for the new Supreme Court Justice looms near, he has adopted an ambiguous note on LGBT rights, including same-sex marriage. The authors propose that this is a tactic to cause derision among pro-life and LGBT proponents. They are pulling from an interesting interview of Trump on 60-minutes (short details found here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/11/14/trump-says-gay-marriage-is-settled-by-the-courts-but-not-abortion/?utm_term=.e3068a094329)

Where Trump is evasive about his opinions on the LGBT community and marriage equality, but gives a thumbs up to the potential for repealing Roe V. Wade. If we are to believe Vice President Pence’s word that the president and congress are in the “promise-keeping business” that should give immediate concern to not only pro-choice supporters, but LGBT community based on his previous stance and current stance of much of his cabinet.

The articles main logistical point is framed around the historical legacy of Supreme court decisions that upheld the “highly personal decisions about our family and personal lives — decisions central to our equal dignity and rights of conscience — [which] are for each of us, not the government, to decide.” They argue that abortion rights are wrapt up within the same protection guaranteed to LGBT members. If one is successfully limited, it will carve a legal foothold for its neighboring interest group.

I agree with the authors fear especially the ending argument that we need extreme vetting of the next supreme court justice. With every interest group afraid for it’s own interest, it may be easy to overlook the injustices being done elsewhere. We need a supreme court justice who will not be swayed by the mighty push of the controlling party.

Court Refuses to Reinstate Travel Ban, Dealing Trump Another Legal Loss

Trump's bid to reinstate his controversial travel ban has been struck down by a federal Appeals court.
Earlier this month Trump made an executive order banning travel into the U.S. from seven predominantly Muslim countries. When a federal judge issued a halt on certain restrictions of his issue, Trump swiftly retaliated. The article delves into the aftermath of the review, and contention surrounding Trumps and the courts decisions.

The article outlines the decisions of the federal courts and the heated responses of the president. The court decided in a unanimous vote that the order "did not advance national security" as "...the administration had shown no evidence that anyone form the seven nations - Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen - had committed terrorist acts in the United States." In an aside, the courts rebuked Trumps challenge that courts should have interfered in his executive issue stating that their involvement checking executive orders is imperative for our form of democracy. Opinions on both
sides are heatedly noted.

The articles goes into the account of consequences immediately following the ban as slews of people were suddenly barred entrance. The court is still deciding on certain details of the issue as well as larger implications. Notably, it is deferring the question of whether the ban is unconstitutional because of its target on a specific religious group. The court is still deciding if some restrictions should be implemented indefinitely, as well as considering the addition of more countries being added to the list.

This article highlights key contention between executive and judicial players at the highest level of our government. Despite a stay being placed on his order, I expect that the after effects of our president's actions will have lasting negative effects on our foreign policy. As the final verdict is still out on certain aspects, this could could go down as a first instance of Trump bullying other branches into agreement. If the spirit of anti-muslim/anti-brown people continues to infect the united states discourse and policy I think you could easily refer to this article as an account.