DOCSLIB.ORG

Supreme Court Wipes out Travel Ban Appeal

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supreme Court Wipes out Travel Ban Appeal 1 DOCUMENTATION: EMERGENCY RESOLUTION ON TRAVEL “MUSLIM BAN” LIST OF ARTICLES – FOLLOWED BY FULL TEXT Liptak, Adam (24 Oct. 2017). Supreme Court Wipes Out Travel Ban Appeal. The New York Times. At https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/24/us/politics/supreme-court-travel-ban-appeal- trump.html?action=click&contentCollection=Politics&module=RelatedCoverage&region=EndOfArticle&pgtype=article Liptak, Adam. (4 Dec. 2017). Supreme Court Allows Trump Travel Ban to Take Effect. The New York Times. At https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/us/politics/trump-travel-ban-supreme-court.html?_r=0 Goldman, Adam, and Fandos, Nicholas (29 Nov. 2017). Lawmakers Confront F.B.I. Director Over Report on Black Extremists. The New York Times. At https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/us/politics/fbi-black-identity-extremist-report.html Rosenthal, Andrew. (19 Oct. 2017). Op. Ed. The F.B.I.’s Black Phantom Menace. The New York Times. At https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/19/opinion/columnists/fbi-blacks-civil-rights.html Saleh, Maryam. (7 Dec. 2017). The Intercept. At https://theintercept.com/2017/12/07/trump-travel-ban-supreme-court-muslims- national-security/ Baker, Peter, and Sullivan, Eileen (29 Nov. 2017). Trump Shares Inflammatory Anti-Muslim Videos, and Britain’s Leader Condemns Them. The New York Times. At https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/us/politics/trump-anti-muslim-videos-jayda-fransen.html Saul, Stephanie (2 Jan. 2018). As Flow of Foreign Students Wanes, U.S. Universities Feel the Sting. The New York Times. At https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/02/us/international-enrollment-drop.html?_r=0 Murphy, Michael J. (18 July 2017). Commentary. Growth of xenophobia in U.S. drives talent to other lands. At http://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-opinion/article/Growth-of-xenophobia-in-U-S-drives-talent-to-11297857.php Llorente, Elizabeth (10 October 2017). FBI cites black extremists as new domestic terrorist threat. Fox News. At http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/10/fbi-cites-black-extremists-as-new-domestic-terrorist-threat.html DeYoung, Karen, and Miroff, Nick. (21 Nov. 2017). Trump administration to end provisional residency protection for 60,000 Haitians. The Washington Post. At https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-to-end- provisional-residency-protection-for-50000-haitians/2017/11/20/fa3fdd86-ce4a-11e7-9d3a- bcbe2af58c3a_story.html?utm_term=.61d201320907 #13 Right-Wing Money Promotes Model Legislation to Restrict Free Speech on University Campuses. (4 October 2017). ProjectCensored. At http://projectcensored.org/13-right-wing-money-promotes-model-legislation-restrict-free-speech-university- campuses/ Is the U.S. Exporting Its Travel Ban with Thousand of TSA & DHS Agents in 70 Countries? (29 Dec. 2017). Democracy Now. At https://www.democracynow.org/2017/12/29/is_the_us_exporting_its_travel Media Focus on Muslims After Attack in NY Even as NYPD Says Islam Played No Role. (2 Nov. 2017). Democracy Now. At https://www.democracynow.org/2017/11/2/trump_media_focus_on_muslims_after Mullen, Jethro . (15 Dec. 2017). Trump to propose ending rule allowing spouses of H-1B holders to work in U.S. CNN Money. At http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/15/technology/h1b-visa-spouses-h4-trump/index.html ++++++++++++ DOCUMENTATION – FULL TEXT OF ARTICLES (AS LISTED ABOVE) Liptak, Adam (24 Oct. 2017). Supreme Court Wipes Out Travel Ban Appeal. The New York Times. At https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/24/us/politics/supreme-court-travel-ban-appeal- trump.html?action=click&contentCollection=Politics&module=RelatedCoverage&region=EndOfArticle&pgtype=article Supreme Court Wipes Out Travel Ban Appeal The Supreme Court dismissed on Tuesday the last remaining appeal in a pair of cases challenging President Trump’s executive order, issued in March, that sought to limit travel to the United States. The March order was replaced in September with broader restrictions, and they have already been blocked by federal district courts in Hawaiiand Maryland. Tuesday’s dismissal mostly amounted to judicial housekeeping, clearing out challenges to the March order as the justices await eventual appeals from the one issued in September. 2 In its brief, unsigned disposition, the court said the March order had expired, making the case moot. “We express no view on the merits,” the court said. But the Supreme Court did a little more than simply remove the case from its docket. It also vacated the decision under appeal, from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, meaning it cannot be used as a precedent. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, saying that she would have simply dismissed the case and allowed the appeals court decision to remain on the books. The Ninth Circuit ruled in June that Mr. Trump had exceeded his statutory authority in limiting travel from six mostly Muslim countries and suspending the nation’s refugee program. Erasing that precedent may have implications for the new challenge to the September order. Last week, in blocking the new order, Judge Derrick K. Watson, of the Federal District Court in Honolulu, relied heavily on the Ninth Circuit’s decision. The September order, Judge Watson found, “plainly discriminates based on nationality in the manner that the Ninth Circuit has found antithetical to both” a federal immigration law and “the founding principles of this nation.” The administration may seek to revisit Judge Watson’s ruling now that the Ninth Circuit’s decision has been vacated. In June, the Supreme Court agreed to hear appeals from both the Ninth Circuit’s decision and one from the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va. The Fourth Circuit had also ruled against the administration but on different grounds, saying that the March order violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in discriminating based on religion. Over the summer, the two sides continued to tangle in court over what aspects of the March order could be enforced in the meantime. In its June order, the Supreme Court said that people with “a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States” could continue to enter the country. In rulings issued in July and September, the justices upheld broad restrictions against refugees entering the United States but allowed grandparents and other relatives of American residents to travel here. The administration’s issuance of the September order prompted the justices to cancel oral arguments in the two cases, which had been scheduled for Oct. 10, and to ask the parties for briefs on whether the cases were moot. The administration said they were, and it urged the court to vacate the appeals court decisions. The challengers asked the justices to hear the appeals and to leave the appeals court decisions in place if they decided to dismiss them. On Oct. 10 — the day the arguments were to have been heard — the court dismissed the administration’s appeal from the Fourth Circuit’s ruling and vacated the appeals court’s decision. Justice Sotomayor dissented from that ruling, too, saying that she would have simply dismissed the case without wiping out the appeals court’s ruling. The Supreme Court did not take immediate action on the Ninth Circuit’s decision on Oct. 10, presumably because the decision was broader, addressing both limits on travel from six nations and the refugee program. The September order concerned only travel restrictions, from a similar set of countries, and not the refugee program. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Liptak, Adam. (4 Dec. 2017). Supreme Court Allows Trump Travel Ban to Take Effect. The New York Times. At https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/us/politics/trump-travel-ban-supreme-court.html?_r=0 Supreme Court Allows Trump Travel Ban to Take Effect WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the third version of the Trump administration’s travel ban to go into effect while legal challenges against it continue. The decision was a victory for the administration after its mixed success before the court over the summer, when justices considered and eventually dismissed disputes over the second version. The court’s brief, unsigned orders on Monday urged appeals courts to move swiftly to determine whether the latest ban was lawful. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor said they would have denied the administration’s request to allow the latest ban to go into effect. The court’s orders mean that the administration can fully enforce its new restrictions on travel from eight nations, six of them predominantly Muslim. For now, most citizens of Iran, Libya, 3 Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Chad and North Korea will be barred from entering the United States, along with some groups of people from Venezuela. The restrictions vary in their details, but in most cases, citizens of the countries will be unable to emigrate to the United States permanently and many will be barred from working, studying or vacationing here. Iran, for example, will still be able to send its citizens on student exchanges, though such visitors will be subject to enhanced screening. Somalis will no longer be allowed to emigrate to the United States, but may visit with extra screening. The Supreme Court’s orders effectively overturned a compromise in place since June, when the court said travelers with connections to the United States could continue to travel here notwithstanding restrictions in an earlier version of the ban. The orders gave no reasons for the court’s shift. The move did suggest that the administration’s chances of prevailing at the Supreme Court when the justices consider the lawfulness of the latest ban have markedly increased. Attorney General Jeff Sessions called the order “a substantial victory for the safety and security of the American people.” A spokesman for the White House, Hogan Gidley, said, “We are not surprised by today’s Supreme Court decision,” calling it “lawful and essential to protecting our homeland.” The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents people and groups challenging the ban, said it would continue to argue against the ban as challenges against it in lower appeals courts proceed.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • January 2018 MANIFESTATIONS of ISLAMOPHO
    DIALOGUE & OUTREACH Department OIC Islamophobia Observatory Monthly Bulletin – January 2018 MANIFESTATIONS OF ISLAMOPHOBIA: A. In the United States and Canada: US: Minnesota Republicans under fire for saying Muslims are infiltrating the party— Two Minnesota Republican state lawmakers and a local GOP official were facing scrutiny after they reportedly shared a Facebook post accusing Muslims of preparing to “infiltrate” the party’s caucuses this month. State Reps. Kathy Lohmer and Cindy Pugh, shared the post created by Dave Sina, chairman of the Fourth Congressional District GOP. In the post, Sina said a friend of his had attended a caucus training session held at a mosque by the Muslim American Society. MAS was a nonpartisan organization that promoted civic engagement among American Muslims with local chapters across the US. Sina claimed that Muslims were trying to “infiltrate our republican caucuses on Feb. 6” and that “they didn’t talk about the general election but I am sure they are ahead of us in that as well.” The local party chair played to a sense of hysteria that American Muslims were, and would always be, foreigners who want political influence only to harm the country. See: The Huffington Post News’ entry, in: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/minnesota-republicans-muslims- caucuses_us_5a7217b9e4b05253b2752e90, retrieved on 3.1.2018 US: Steve Bannon steps down from Breitbart News— Stephen Bannon had stepped down as executive chairman of Breitbart News, the company announced in an online post and a source close to Bannon confirmed. The former White House chief strategist faced mounting pressure to resign from Breitbart after he was quoted disparaging President Donald Trump and his family in a new book “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House” by Michael Wolff.
    [Show full text]
  • Religious Conservatives to Judge Top Republicans GOP White House Hopefuls Oppose Abortion Rights
    International FRIDAY, JUNE 20, 2014 Hillary book sales top 100,000 in first week NEW YORK: Hillary Rodham Clinton’s “Hard Choices” sold more than 100,000 copies during its opening week, its publisher told The Associated Press on Wednesday. “We’re elated,” said Simon & Schuster’s president and publisher, Jonathan Karp, who declined to offer a more specific sales figure. “This book is on a trajectory to be the best-selling nonfiction book of the year.” “Hard Choices” sold well enough to earn the covet- ed No. 1 spot on the nonfiction hardcover list of The New York Times that comes out June 29. But its debut was also far slower than that for her previous memoir, “Living History,” which sold around 600,000 copies dur- ing its first week. One likely difference: “Living History,” published in 2003, included her first extended com- ments on the affair between President Bill Clinton and White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Anticipation for “Hard Choices,” which covers her four years as secretary of state, focused more on whether it would include any hints that she was running for president. “Hard CAMBRIDGE: HiIlary Rodham Clinton holds a copy of her new book “Hard Choices,” at the start of a Choices,” which also included little about her con- book signing at Harvard Book Store in Cambridge, Mass. — AP tentious primary campaign against Barack Obama in 2008, ends with Clinton saying she is still undecided Bush. Both of Clinton’s memoirs have received mixed tions. Since 2003, the Borders superstore chain has about seeking the presidency again.
    [Show full text]
  • Lest We Forget the Horrors: a Catalog of Trump’S Worst Cruelties, Collusions, Corruptions, and Crimes
    COPYRIGHT MCSWEENEY’S 2020/2021 MCSWEENEYS.NET LEST WE FORGET THE HORRORS: A CATALOG OF TRUMP’S WORST CRUELTIES, COLLUSIONS, CORRUPTIONS, AND CRIMES THE COMPLETE LISTIN G : ATROCITIES 1- 1056 BY BEN PARKER, STEPHANIE STEINBRECHER, KELSEY RONAN, JOHN M C MURTRIE, SOPHIA D U ROSE, RACHEL VILLA, AND AMY SUMERTON - - - Early in President Trump’s term, McSweeney’s editors began to catalog the head-spinning number of misdeeds coming from his administration. We called this list a collection of Trump’s cruelties, collusions, and crimes, and it felt urgent then to track them, to ensure these horrors — happening almost daily — would not be forgotten. This election year, amid a harrowing global health, civil rights, humanitarian, and economic crisis, we know it’s never been more critical to note these horrors, to remember them, and to do all in our power to reverse them. - - - Various writers have compiled this list during the course of the Trump administration. Their work has been guided by invaluable journalistic resources, including WTFJHT, NPR, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other sources, to whom we are grateful. - - - ATROCITY KEY – Sexual Misconduct, Harassment, & Bullying – White Supremacy, Racism, Homophobia, Transphobia, & Xenophobia – Public Statements / Tweets – Collusion with Russia & Obstruction of Justice – Trump Staff & Administration – Trump Family Business Dealings – Policy – Environment - - - BEFORE JANUARY 2017 1. – February 10, 2011 – In 2011, Donald Trump stoked false claims that Barack Obama had lied about his education. During a speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference, Trump said, “Our current president came out of nowhere. Came out of nowhere. In fact, I’ll go a step further: The people that went to school with him, they never saw him, they don’t know who he is.
    [Show full text]
  • The Trump Travel Ban: Rhetoric Vs Reality
    Digital Commons at St. Mary's University Faculty Articles School of Law Faculty Scholarship Summer 2019 The Trump Travel Ban: Rhetoric vs Reality Jeffrey F. Addicott St. Mary's University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.stmarytx.edu/facarticles Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Jeffrey F. Addicott, The Trump Travel Ban: Rhetoric vs Reality, 44 U. Dayton L. Rev. 491 (2019). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law Faculty Scholarship at Digital Commons at St. Mary's University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Articles by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons at St. Mary's University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE TRUMP TRAVEL BAN: RHETORIC VS REALITY Jeffrey F. Addicott* 1 "SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS TRUMP TRA VEL BAN. Wow!" -PresidentDonald J. Trump A BSTRACT ..................................................................................................49 1 I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................492 II. OVERVIEW ..............................................................................................494 Im]. LOWER FEDERAL COURT LEGAL CHALLENGES TO THE TRUMP TRAVEL B AN .................................................................................................495 IV.OVERVEW OF TRUMP V.HAWAII ...........................................................504 V. THE PLAINTIFFS' TEXTUAL ARGUMENT IN
    [Show full text]
  • If It's Broke, Fix It: Restoring Federal Government Ethics and Rule Of
    If it’s Broke, Fix it Restoring Federal Government Ethics and Rule of Law Edited by Norman Eisen The editor and authors of this report are deeply grateful to several indi- viduals who were indispensable in its research and production. Colby Galliher is a Project and Research Assistant in the Governance Studies program of the Brookings Institution. Maya Gros and Kate Tandberg both worked as Interns in the Governance Studies program at Brookings. All three of them conducted essential fact-checking and proofreading of the text, standardized the citations, and managed the report’s production by coordinating with the authors and editor. IF IT’S BROKE, FIX IT 1 Table of Contents Editor’s Note: A New Day Dawns ................................................................................. 3 By Norman Eisen Introduction ........................................................................................................ 7 President Trump’s Profiteering .................................................................................. 10 By Virginia Canter Conflicts of Interest ............................................................................................... 12 By Walter Shaub Mandatory Divestitures ...................................................................................... 12 Blind-Managed Accounts .................................................................................... 12 Notification of Divestitures .................................................................................. 13 Discretionary Trusts
    [Show full text]
  • MIAMI UNIVERSITY the Graduate School
    MIAMI UNIVERSITY The Graduate School Certificate for Approving the Dissertation We hereby approve the Dissertation of Bridget Christine Gelms Candidate for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy ______________________________________ Dr. Jason Palmeri, Director ______________________________________ Dr. Tim Lockridge, Reader ______________________________________ Dr. Michele Simmons, Reader ______________________________________ Dr. Lisa Weems, Graduate School Representative ABSTRACT VOLATILE VISIBILITY: THE EFFECTS OF ONLINE HARASSMENT ON FEMINIST CIRCULATION AND PUBLIC DISCOURSE by Bridget C. Gelms As our digital environments—in their inhabitants, communities, and cultures—have evolved, harassment, unfortunately, has become the status quo on the internet (Duggan, 2014 & 2017; Jane, 2014b). Harassment is an issue that disproportionately affects women, particularly women of color (Citron, 2014; Mantilla, 2015), LGBTQIA+ women (Herring et al., 2002; Warzel, 2016), and women who engage in social justice, civil rights, and feminist discourses (Cole, 2015; Davies, 2015; Jane, 2014a). Whitney Phillips (2015) notes that it’s politically significant to pay attention to issues of online harassment because this kind of invective calls “attention to dominant cultural mores” (p. 7). Keeping our finger on the pulse of such attitudes is imperative to understand who is excluded from digital publics and how these exclusions perpetuate racism and sexism to “preserve the internet as a space free of politics and thus free of challenge to white masculine heterosexual hegemony” (Higgin, 2013, n.p.). While rhetoric and writing as a field has a long history of examining myriad exclusionary practices that occur in public discourses, we still have much work to do in understanding how online harassment, particularly that which is gendered, manifests in digital publics and to what rhetorical effect.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of Brian Karem
    STATEMENT OF BRIAN KAREM I write to provide you with background about myself and to tell you my side of the story regarding what happened at the Social Media Summit on July 11, 2019. I have been a political reporter for almost 40 years. I have also covered crime and wars, and I have run community newspapers. I’ve been jailed, shot at, beaten, and threatened. I am currently Playboy’s senior White House correspondent and a political analyst for CNN. I am president of the Maryland, Delaware, and District of Columbia Press Association. In 1990, I was jailed for contempt of court after refusing to disclose the name of confidential sources who helped me arrange a telephone interview with a jailed murder suspect, after which I was awarded the National Press Club’s Freedom of the Press award. I went on to work as executive editor of The Sentinel Newspapers in Maryland and as producer and television correspondent for America’s Most Wanted. I have also authored seven books. I have covered six White Houses. While I have held my current hard pass since last year, in the past I also held hard passes. My experience in the White House is important because I can tell you, point blank, that the behavior of the press corps today is tame by comparison. The first time I walked into the White House I was 25. It was 1986 and Ronald Reagan was president. The first person I met was Helen Thomas, who covered the White House under ten Presidents, and who, as it turns out, knew my great grandfather from Lebanon.
    [Show full text]
  • President Trump's Travel Ban: a Response to Terrorism
    President Trump’s Travel Ban: A Response to Terrorism On Jan. 27, President Trump signed an executive order that temporarily closed the nation’s borders to refugees from around the world and to people from seven predominantly Muslim countries. Part of the president’s order gives preferential treatment to Christian refugees from majority-Muslim countries who try to enter the U.S. By Jan. 28, a federal judge in Brooklyn had already blocked part of the president’s executive order, which has been labeled a ‘travel ban’ by the media, preventing the government from deporting some arrivals who found themselves ensnared by the presidential order. But the judge stopped short of letting those new arrivals into the country or issuing a broader ruling on the constitutionality of Mr. Trump’s actions. Supporters of the executive order say that it is a key step toward keeping our country safe and that the president legally has the power to restrict immigration. Opponents of the order say that it is illegal because it targets immigrants of a certain nationality and religion, which is against the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 and the 1st Amendment. Since then, President Trump withdrew his original order and issued a new executive order on March 6, revising his previous immigration order. The new order blocks citizens of six predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States, the most significant hardening of immigration policy in generations, even with changes intended to blunt legal and political opposition. Is Trump’s executive order likely to help prevent future terrorist acts, as is its stated purpose? Trump states in the executive order: Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program.
    [Show full text]
  • Travel Ban 3.0 at the Supreme Court
    Travel Ban 3.0 at the Supreme Court Last Updated July 2, 2018 THE SUPREME COURT DECISION On June 26, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion in the case of Trump v. Hawaii. (Travel Ban 3.0). Writing for the five-justice majority, Chief Justice Roberts held [that President Trump’s travel ban does not violate the constitution or the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)]. The Proclamation will continue to be fully in force indefinitely. The Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in the case of Trump v. Hawaii on April 25, 2018 (Travel Ban 3.0). The Supreme Court had asked both parties to answer the four following questions: 1) Can the Court review the respondent’s challenge to Travel Ban 3.0? 2) Is Travel Ban 3.0 a lawful exercise of the President’s authority? 3) Is a nationwide injunction impermissibly overbroad? 4) Does Travel Ban 3.0 violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? The Majority Opinion by Chief Justice Roberts: Addressing first the plaintiff’s statutory claims, the Chief Justice said, “The Proclamation is squarely within the scope of Presidential authority under the INA.” He described 8 U.S.C. §1182(f) as a “comprehensive delegation” which “exudes deference to the President in every clause.” Within the statute he found authority for the President to determine whether, when, who, and on what conditions to exclude foreign nationals. The Chief Justice dismissed arguments made by plaintiffs and the dissent that Proclamation is inconsistent with the INA. He found, for example,
    [Show full text]
  • BAB IV Kesimpulan 4.1 Kesimpulan Berdasarkan Hasil Analisis Secara
    BAB IV Kesimpulan 4.1 Kesimpulan Berdasarkan hasil analisis secara mendalam terhadap tindakan Donald Trump yang merespon aksi anti-Muslim melalui Twitter yang dilakukan oleh Jayda Fransen yang merupakan seorang wakil pemimpin partai sayap kanan Britain First, secara tidak langsung hal tersebut berdampak terhadap peningkatan Islamophobia di AS, di mana peningkatan Islamophobia tersebut termasuk ke dalam peningkatan pada klaster pertama, klaster kedua, klaster ketiga, klaster keempat, dan klaster kelima. Peningkatan dalam Islamophobia tersebut diukur dengan melihat dari jenis klaster yang dicetuskan oleh S. Sayyid: Klaster pertama, di mana ada manifestasi Islamophobia melalui serangan terhadap orang-orang Muslim yang mencakup melakukan pelecehan, mendorong, meneriaki, dan menarik jilbab dari wanita Muslim; Klaster kedua, terjadi serangan terhadap properti yang dianggap terkait dengan Muslim: masjid, kuburan, tempat bisnis; Klaster ketiga, ada Islamophobia yang diwakili oleh tindakan intimidasi seperti kampanye atau iklan yang memperingati akan bahayanya Islam; Klaster keempat, perilaku pelecehan, penindasan, lelucon yang melewati batas, dan penilaian kinerja di mana mereka yang dianggap Muslim dikenakan perlakuan atau komentar yang merugikan. Klaster kelima, bentuk Islamophobia ini dapat diartikulasikan di situs-situs kebencian internet, surat kabar, majalah, atau media lainnya. 79 Hal ini bisa terjadi karena Trump, menurut teori psikoanalisis, memiliki konflik internal di mana ia tidak bisa menyeimbangkan antara id, ego, dan superego-nya sehingga tindakan yang dilakukannya berdasarkan hanya dari keinginannya saja. Ia tidak mempertimbangkan konsekuensi baik yang positif atau pun negatif yang dapat terjadi. Oleh karena itu ia memiliki kepribadian yang tidak sehat, dan tergolong ekstrem. Selain itu, sebagai presiden, sudah seharusnya Trump dapat menempatkan diri sebagai tokoh yang baik bagi masyarakat, sebagai tokoh panutan, dan tidak memanipulasi masyarakatnya.
    [Show full text]
  • A Critical Discourse Analysis
    How Facebook Comments Reflect Certain Characteristics Of Islamophobia: A Critical Discourse Analysis By Annabell Curci-Wallis UPPSALA UNIVERSITY Department of Theology Master Programme in Religion in Peace and Conflict Master thesis 30 credits Spring 2019 Supervisor: Mia Lövheim Facebook Comments and the Reflection of Characteristics of Islamophobia 2 Thank you: I am extremely grateful to my supervisor, Mia Lövheim, who was patient with me, advised me, and send insightful comments and suggestions even when she had the flu, so I could finish on time. I could not have done it without you. Thank you. I also like to say thank you to my husband, and my sweet daughter, who both supported me by giving me enough time and space, to finish my work. Abstract: This study is a contribution to the limited knowledge of how different types of media content (about Muslims and extremism) posted and shared on Facebook might influence corresponding user comments. Through analyzing the discourse of user comments this study aims to identify how comments might reflect certain characteristics of Islamophobia, and to which themes in Facebook posts commentators relate to the most. The linguistic analysis is guided by the use of critical discourse analysis. For the purpose of this study, three different ​ types of articles/video and the corresponding comments are analyzed. Two of the articles/video that I will analyze are from unreliable media sources, and one of the articles is from a credible ​ ​ media source. The linguistic analysis showed that the majority of commentators expressed that ​ they believe the claims made in the articles/video about Muslims and extremism are true.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Silver Elephant Dinner
    SOUTH CAROLINA REPUBLICAN PARTY THE ROAD TO THE WHITE HOUSE 53rd ANNUAL SILVER ELEPHANT PRE-RECEPTION SOUTH CAROLINA REPUBLICAN PARTY THE ROAD TO THE WHITE HOUSE 53rd ANNUAL SILVER ELEPHANT GUEST SOUTH CAROLINA REPUBLICAN PARTY THE ROAD TO THE WHITE HOUSE 53rd ANNUAL SILVER ELEPHANT STAFF SOUTH CAROLINA REPUBLICAN PARTY THE ROAD TO THE WHITE HOUSE 53rd ANNUAL SILVER ELEPHANT PRESS SOUTH CAROLINA REPUBLICAN PARTY THE ROAD TO THE WHITE HOUSE 53RD ANNUAL SILVER ELEPHANT DINNER • 2020 FTS-SC-RepParty-2020-SilverElephantProgram.indd 1 9/8/20 9:50 AM never WELCOME CHAIRMAN DREW MCKISSICK Welcome to the 2020 Silver Elephant Gala! For 53 years, South Carolina Republicans have gathered together each year to forget... celebrate our party’s conservative principles, as well as the donors and activists who help promote those principles in our government. While our Party has enjoyed increasing success in the years since our Elephant Club was formed, we always have to remember that no victories are ever perma- nent. They are dependent on our continuing to be faithful to do the fundamen- tals: communicating a clear conservative message that is relevant to voters, identifying and organizing fellow Republicans, and raising the money to make it all possible. As we gather this evening on the anniversary of the tragic terrorists attacks on our homeland in 2001, we’re reminded about what’s at stake in our elections this year - the protection of our families, our homes, our property, our borders and our fundamental values. This year’s election offers us an incredible opportunity to continue to expand our Party.
    [Show full text]