Britain will finish the week with temperatures up to five degrees colder than usual for this time of year.
The Met Office has forecast several days of cold weather, snow, sleet and frost, with the Midlands likely to be the coldest region - at -3C on Wednesday night.
Yellow warnings have been issued for ice in parts of Wales, southwest England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, while London could see snow on Wednesday night.
A spokeswoman for the Met Office said an easterly wind from Scandinavia means temperatures over the coming days will be lower than the average for the time of year.
"In London it should be 2-3C above freezing at night and over the weekend it is expected to be -1C (30.2F)," she said.
The weekend will bring widespread frost and showers across Britain, with 6cm of snow forecast in the Grampians.
Age UK has urged older people to take precautions in the cold weather to keep themselves "safe and well".
"The cold weather can be really challenging for older people, particularly those who are more vulnerable because of pre-existing health conditions or who are living in housing that is difficult and expensive to heat," said charity director Caroline Abrahams.
Wednesday, February 8, 2017
Senate confirms Jeff Sessions as attorney general
The Senate on Wednesday confirmed Jeff Sessions as the next attorney general, following a bitter debate in the chamber that saw Republicans formally rebuke Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) for the manner in which she criticized her colleague from Alabama.
Sessions, a four-term U.S. senator, was the first senator to endorse Trump in February 2016, and his conservative, populist views have shaped many of the administration’s early policies, including on immigration.
The vote, 52-47 in favor of confirmation, ran largely down party lines. Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) was the only Democrat who supported him. Sessions voted present.
But he has repeatedly declined to say whether he would recuse himself from any investigation involving Trump associates and possible links to Russia’s interference in the presidential election, saying he would seek the recommendations of department ethics officials and “value them significantly” in making a decision.
Sessions’ confirmation leaves a vacancy that will be filled by Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley, a Republican. That term ends in 2018.
A measure of the hostility that has permeated the confirmation process for Trump’s cabinet nominees was reflected in the rare censure of Warren after she read from a letter written by the late Coretta Scott King in opposition to Sessions’ nomination to the federal bench in 1986.
“The senator has impugned the motives and conduct of our colleague from Alabama,” said Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) of Warren, before the Senate voted along party lines to bar the Massachusetts senator from speaking during the remainder of the nomination debate.
Sessions, who came of age in the Deep South during the darkest days of the civil rights movement, has struggled to reconcile the charged racial politics of his region with the changing national discourse that has lifted longstanding legal barriers for minorities. His career has long been shadowed by charges that he is racially insensitive, which doomed his bid to become a federal judge.
His supporters have pointed to his prosecution as U.S. Attorney of two Ku Klux Klan members for killing a black youth, and his co-sponsoring of legislation to honor civil rights activist Rosa Parks with the Congressional Gold Medal. To underscore the point, Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) on Tuesday went to the floor and put on display an enlarged photograph of a “governmental award of excellence” given to Sessions in
2009 by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People’s Alabama chapter--an award that he said Sessions “forgot to tell us about.” The plaque was engraved with the words “for the outstanding work you do.”
Said Graham: “His biggest crime is, I think, that he’s very conservative. That to me is not a disqualifier, any more than being liberal is a disqualifier.”
McConnell on Wednesday said, “It’s been tough to watch all this good man has been put through in recent weeks. This is a well-qualified colleague with a deep reverence for the law. He believes strongly in the equal application of it to everyone.”
But Sessions’ critics point to his record on voting rights, same-sex marriage, gender equality and immigration and say they fear he will work to restrict civil rights. They point to his prosecution of voting rights activists in Alabama in the 1980s that resulted in an acquittal for all three defendants, and which was the basis of King’s letter charging him with attempting to “intimidate and frighten elderly black voters.”
He has voted at least twice against comprehensive immigration reform, which was supported by members of his own party. They note he was one of just four senators in 2015 to oppose a Senate resolution affirming that the United States “must not bar individuals from entering into the United States based on their religion.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, said on the floor that her office had received 114,000 calls and emails regarding Sessions, with more than 98 percent opposed. She quoted from constitutents who “deeply oppose this president and this nominee” and have hit the streets in protest. One doctor, she said, “marched because of the thousands of patients I’ve seen in the community, people of color, immigrants from all over the globe, who are terrified about the loss of their rights and the dramatic explosion of racially and culturally-focused hate crimes we’re reading about.”
She questioned how Sessions would handle the government’s investigation of Russian interference in the election, which could lead to the prosecution of individuals who helped hack the Democratic party in an effort to help Trump win.
“It obviously has the potential to create embarrassment for the president and his people, and to implicate people involved in the campaign,” she said. “Can [Sessions] be independent of the White House? I do not believe he can.”
Sessions, a four-term U.S. senator, was the first senator to endorse Trump in February 2016, and his conservative, populist views have shaped many of the administration’s early policies, including on immigration.
The vote, 52-47 in favor of confirmation, ran largely down party lines. Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) was the only Democrat who supported him. Sessions voted present.
Republicans accused Democrats of seeking to undercut Trump by attempting to derail his cabinet choices. “It’s no secret that our Democrat colleagues don’t like the new president and are doing what they can to undermine the new administration,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the Judiciary Committee chairman.
He expressed disappointment in colleagues who, he said, suggested Sessions won’t be able to put aside his policy preferences and enforce the law. “This is especially troubling after he specifically committed to us during his confirmation hearing that, if he’s confirmed, he will follow the law, regardless of whether he supported the statute as a policy matter,” Grassley said.
[Republicans vote to rebuke Elizabeth Warren]
Leading Democrats have argued that Trump’s criticisms of the federal courts over his immigration order makes the need for an attorney general who will be willing to disagree with the president even more urgent.
“What we’ve seen is a president who belittles judges when they don’t agree with him,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). “What we’ve seen is a president who is willing to shake the roots of the Constitution and a fundamental premise — no religious test — that’s embodied in our Constitution within his first few weeks in office,” Schumer said. “We certainly need an attorney general who will stand up to that president …. But [Sessions] is not, if you can say one thing about him, he’s not independent of Donald Trump.”
Sessions, 70, advanced out of the judiciary committee last week after a vote along party lines. The hearing took place after then-acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, an Obama administration holdover, had ordered the department’s lawyers not to defend Trump’s immigration order on grounds that she was not convinced it was lawful. Within hours, Trump fired her.
In his confirmation hearing last month, Sessions repeatedly vowed to put the law above his personal views. He said he would abide by the Supreme Court decision underpinning abortion rights and a court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. He said he understood that the waterboarding of terrorism suspects to elicit information is “absolutely improper and illegal” and, though he voted against it, he would uphold a law banning the government’s bulk collection of phone records.
[Trump’s pick for attorney general is shadowed by race and history]
He also declared that he would recuse himself from Justice Department probe of Hillary Clinton’s email practices or her family’s charitable foundation, mindful that his previous comments “could place my objectivity in question.”
He expressed disappointment in colleagues who, he said, suggested Sessions won’t be able to put aside his policy preferences and enforce the law. “This is especially troubling after he specifically committed to us during his confirmation hearing that, if he’s confirmed, he will follow the law, regardless of whether he supported the statute as a policy matter,” Grassley said.
[Republicans vote to rebuke Elizabeth Warren]
Leading Democrats have argued that Trump’s criticisms of the federal courts over his immigration order makes the need for an attorney general who will be willing to disagree with the president even more urgent.
“What we’ve seen is a president who belittles judges when they don’t agree with him,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). “What we’ve seen is a president who is willing to shake the roots of the Constitution and a fundamental premise — no religious test — that’s embodied in our Constitution within his first few weeks in office,” Schumer said. “We certainly need an attorney general who will stand up to that president …. But [Sessions] is not, if you can say one thing about him, he’s not independent of Donald Trump.”
Sessions, 70, advanced out of the judiciary committee last week after a vote along party lines. The hearing took place after then-acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, an Obama administration holdover, had ordered the department’s lawyers not to defend Trump’s immigration order on grounds that she was not convinced it was lawful. Within hours, Trump fired her.
In his confirmation hearing last month, Sessions repeatedly vowed to put the law above his personal views. He said he would abide by the Supreme Court decision underpinning abortion rights and a court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. He said he understood that the waterboarding of terrorism suspects to elicit information is “absolutely improper and illegal” and, though he voted against it, he would uphold a law banning the government’s bulk collection of phone records.
[Trump’s pick for attorney general is shadowed by race and history]
He also declared that he would recuse himself from Justice Department probe of Hillary Clinton’s email practices or her family’s charitable foundation, mindful that his previous comments “could place my objectivity in question.”
But he has repeatedly declined to say whether he would recuse himself from any investigation involving Trump associates and possible links to Russia’s interference in the presidential election, saying he would seek the recommendations of department ethics officials and “value them significantly” in making a decision.
Sessions’ confirmation leaves a vacancy that will be filled by Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley, a Republican. That term ends in 2018.
A measure of the hostility that has permeated the confirmation process for Trump’s cabinet nominees was reflected in the rare censure of Warren after she read from a letter written by the late Coretta Scott King in opposition to Sessions’ nomination to the federal bench in 1986.
“The senator has impugned the motives and conduct of our colleague from Alabama,” said Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) of Warren, before the Senate voted along party lines to bar the Massachusetts senator from speaking during the remainder of the nomination debate.
Sessions, who came of age in the Deep South during the darkest days of the civil rights movement, has struggled to reconcile the charged racial politics of his region with the changing national discourse that has lifted longstanding legal barriers for minorities. His career has long been shadowed by charges that he is racially insensitive, which doomed his bid to become a federal judge.
His supporters have pointed to his prosecution as U.S. Attorney of two Ku Klux Klan members for killing a black youth, and his co-sponsoring of legislation to honor civil rights activist Rosa Parks with the Congressional Gold Medal. To underscore the point, Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) on Tuesday went to the floor and put on display an enlarged photograph of a “governmental award of excellence” given to Sessions in
2009 by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People’s Alabama chapter--an award that he said Sessions “forgot to tell us about.” The plaque was engraved with the words “for the outstanding work you do.”
Said Graham: “His biggest crime is, I think, that he’s very conservative. That to me is not a disqualifier, any more than being liberal is a disqualifier.”
McConnell on Wednesday said, “It’s been tough to watch all this good man has been put through in recent weeks. This is a well-qualified colleague with a deep reverence for the law. He believes strongly in the equal application of it to everyone.”
But Sessions’ critics point to his record on voting rights, same-sex marriage, gender equality and immigration and say they fear he will work to restrict civil rights. They point to his prosecution of voting rights activists in Alabama in the 1980s that resulted in an acquittal for all three defendants, and which was the basis of King’s letter charging him with attempting to “intimidate and frighten elderly black voters.”
He has voted at least twice against comprehensive immigration reform, which was supported by members of his own party. They note he was one of just four senators in 2015 to oppose a Senate resolution affirming that the United States “must not bar individuals from entering into the United States based on their religion.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, said on the floor that her office had received 114,000 calls and emails regarding Sessions, with more than 98 percent opposed. She quoted from constitutents who “deeply oppose this president and this nominee” and have hit the streets in protest. One doctor, she said, “marched because of the thousands of patients I’ve seen in the community, people of color, immigrants from all over the globe, who are terrified about the loss of their rights and the dramatic explosion of racially and culturally-focused hate crimes we’re reading about.”
She questioned how Sessions would handle the government’s investigation of Russian interference in the election, which could lead to the prosecution of individuals who helped hack the Democratic party in an effort to help Trump win.
“It obviously has the potential to create embarrassment for the president and his people, and to implicate people involved in the campaign,” she said. “Can [Sessions] be independent of the White House? I do not believe he can.”
Secrecy surrounding Nigerian president's health fuels rumours
Nigerians are worried about President Buhari since he asked for extended medical leave in the UK and handed over affairs of the state to the Vice-President Yemi Osinbajo. But journalism professor and Daily Trust columnist Farooq Kperogi says there is conflicting information about the state of his health, which is fueling speculation.
Socialite Tara Palmer-Tomkinson found dead aged 45
Socialite Tara Palmer-Tomkinson has been found dead aged 45 at her west London home.
The TV personality and former 'It girl' had been diagnosed with a brain tumour last January after returning from a ski trip.
She also battled drug problems in the past and suffered with an auto-immune disease that caused tiredness, joint pain and acute anaemia.
Palmer-Tomkinson, who was also a newspaper columnist, was close friends with Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall, attending their wedding in 2005.
Her father Charles was a British Olympic skier who taught the Prince of Wales.
She was also among the guests at Prince William's wedding to Kate Middleton in 2011.
Reacting to the news of her death, Prince Charles and his wife Camilla said they were "deeply saddened and our thoughts are so much with the family".
Palmer-Tomkinson was a regular on the London party scene in the 1990s and had a high-profile social life, often appearing in society and celebrity magazines.
She finished second in the jungle TV show I'm A Celebrity in 2002 and also featured in celebrity specials of Blind Date and A Place in the Sun.
In November, she revealed she was being treated for a non-malignant growth in her pituitary gland.
She expressed fears she would die after doctors told her she had the condition.
She told the Daily Mail: "I went to the doctors to talk about my latest blood test results when I got back from skiing in January.
"I said: 'What does this mean? Can you translate it?' And the doctor said: 'As I suspected, you have a brain tumour.'
"I got terribly frightened. I started thinking, 'I'm going to die, I'm going to die. I've only got a couple of weeks to live.' Stuff like that."
Police were called by the ambulance service at about 1.40pm to an address in Kensington.
They said: "A woman, aged in her 40s, was pronounced dead at the scene. Next of kin have been informed."
Officers said her death is being treated as unexplained, but they do not believe it is suspicious.
The TV personality and former 'It girl' had been diagnosed with a brain tumour last January after returning from a ski trip.
She also battled drug problems in the past and suffered with an auto-immune disease that caused tiredness, joint pain and acute anaemia.
Palmer-Tomkinson, who was also a newspaper columnist, was close friends with Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall, attending their wedding in 2005.
Her father Charles was a British Olympic skier who taught the Prince of Wales.
She was also among the guests at Prince William's wedding to Kate Middleton in 2011.
Reacting to the news of her death, Prince Charles and his wife Camilla said they were "deeply saddened and our thoughts are so much with the family".
Palmer-Tomkinson was a regular on the London party scene in the 1990s and had a high-profile social life, often appearing in society and celebrity magazines.
She finished second in the jungle TV show I'm A Celebrity in 2002 and also featured in celebrity specials of Blind Date and A Place in the Sun.
In November, she revealed she was being treated for a non-malignant growth in her pituitary gland.
She expressed fears she would die after doctors told her she had the condition.
She told the Daily Mail: "I went to the doctors to talk about my latest blood test results when I got back from skiing in January.
"I said: 'What does this mean? Can you translate it?' And the doctor said: 'As I suspected, you have a brain tumour.'
"I got terribly frightened. I started thinking, 'I'm going to die, I'm going to die. I've only got a couple of weeks to live.' Stuff like that."
Police were called by the ambulance service at about 1.40pm to an address in Kensington.
They said: "A woman, aged in her 40s, was pronounced dead at the scene. Next of kin have been informed."
Officers said her death is being treated as unexplained, but they do not believe it is suspicious.
Tuesday, February 7, 2017
Judges deciding whether to reinstate Trump travel ban examine arguments
Donald Trump's controversial travel ban has faced a fierce examination by the judges who will decide if it should be reinstated.
The hearing in San Francisco is the greatest legal challenge yet to the move to temporarily suspend the nation's refugee programme and immigration from seven mostly-Muslim countries.
A panel of three appeal court justices heard arguments from the Trump administration's Department of Justice and opponents of his Executive Order. They are expected to rule later in the week.
It followed a White House appeal against a restraining order imposed by a judge last week which has forced the government to temporarily lift the travel ban. It had caused chaos at airports in the US around the world when it was imposed.
Lawyers for both sides addressed the court by telephone during the hour-long session at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The administration asked the court to restore Mr Trump's order as, they say, he alone has the power to decide who can enter or stay in the United States.
Trump: Americans support travel ban
But Judge Michelle Friedland asked whether the government had any evidence connecting the seven affected nations to terrorism.
August Flentje, counsel for the US government, cited a number of Somalis in the US who he claimed had links to the terrorist group al Shabaab.
Judge Richard Clifton asked the lawyer for Washington state and Minnesota, which are challenging the ban, what evidence he had that it was motivated by religion when "the vast majority of Muslims would not be affected".
Noah Purcell responded that Trump's public statements on the campaign trail, calling for a ban on Muslims entering the US, showed discrimination.
The states opposing the ban argue that it is unconstitutional and have been supported by a string of former government officials and dozens of major tech firms. They say the ban has impacted business and divided families.
Whatever the court decides, the case is likely to end up at the US Supreme Court. The ban itself was originally intended to last for just 90 days.
Earlier, Mr Trump said he was willing to go all the way to the highest court in the land.
"It could. We'll see. Hopefully it doesn't have to. It's common sense. You know, some things are law and I'm in favour of that and some things are common sense. This is common sense."
His new head of Homeland Security had also taken responsibility for the troubled roll-out of the ban.
In a hearing on Capitol Hill, John Kelly said: "In retrospect, I should have - this is all on me, by the way - I should have delayed it (roll-out of travel ban), so that I could talk to members of Congress, particularly the leadership of committees like this to prepare them for what was coming."
The hearing in San Francisco is the greatest legal challenge yet to the move to temporarily suspend the nation's refugee programme and immigration from seven mostly-Muslim countries.
A panel of three appeal court justices heard arguments from the Trump administration's Department of Justice and opponents of his Executive Order. They are expected to rule later in the week.
It followed a White House appeal against a restraining order imposed by a judge last week which has forced the government to temporarily lift the travel ban. It had caused chaos at airports in the US around the world when it was imposed.
Lawyers for both sides addressed the court by telephone during the hour-long session at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The administration asked the court to restore Mr Trump's order as, they say, he alone has the power to decide who can enter or stay in the United States.
Trump: Americans support travel ban
But Judge Michelle Friedland asked whether the government had any evidence connecting the seven affected nations to terrorism.
August Flentje, counsel for the US government, cited a number of Somalis in the US who he claimed had links to the terrorist group al Shabaab.
Judge Richard Clifton asked the lawyer for Washington state and Minnesota, which are challenging the ban, what evidence he had that it was motivated by religion when "the vast majority of Muslims would not be affected".
Noah Purcell responded that Trump's public statements on the campaign trail, calling for a ban on Muslims entering the US, showed discrimination.
The states opposing the ban argue that it is unconstitutional and have been supported by a string of former government officials and dozens of major tech firms. They say the ban has impacted business and divided families.
Whatever the court decides, the case is likely to end up at the US Supreme Court. The ban itself was originally intended to last for just 90 days.
Earlier, Mr Trump said he was willing to go all the way to the highest court in the land.
"It could. We'll see. Hopefully it doesn't have to. It's common sense. You know, some things are law and I'm in favour of that and some things are common sense. This is common sense."
His new head of Homeland Security had also taken responsibility for the troubled roll-out of the ban.
In a hearing on Capitol Hill, John Kelly said: "In retrospect, I should have - this is all on me, by the way - I should have delayed it (roll-out of travel ban), so that I could talk to members of Congress, particularly the leadership of committees like this to prepare them for what was coming."
MPs will get deal-or-no-deal vote on Brexit before agreement goes to European Parliament
MPs and peers will be able to vote on whether to accept a final Brexit deal or walk away from the agreement prior to it going before the European Parliament.
But they will not be able to shape the terms of the deal or send the Prime Minister back to Brussels to get more concessions.
The move - a verbal assurance and not a clause that will be written into the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill - was welcomed by shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer.
But a number of MPs said that a "take-it-or-leave-it" vote was not "meaningful" and offered no real choice.
And they were aware that refusing to back a final deal struck by Theresa May would leave the UK turning to WTO rules on tariffs.
Former shadow chancellor Chris Leslie put forward an amendment requiring Parliamentary approval for any deal to be written into the bill.
The Labour backbencher's clause was defeated by 326 votes to 293, a majority of 33, but seven Tory MPs voted against the Government - Ken Clarke, Bob Neill, Andrew Tyrie, Claire Perry, Anna Soubry, Antoinette Sandbach and Heidi Allen.
Six Labour MPs voted with the Government.
But as the Conservatives' working majority is just 16, if the Tory rebellion grows this could cause headaches for Downing Street further down the line in the Brexit process.
:: What does the Brexit trigger bill say?
An SNP clause stating that if Parliament voted against the Government's deal the UK would stay in the EU on "existing terms" was defeated 336-88.
Sky sources understand that a group of Tory rebels led by former attorney general Dominic Grieve wrote a note for Downing Street to consider ahead of Tuesday morning's Cabinet meeting.
In it they threatened to vote in favour of Mr Leslie's cross-party amendment on a final deal vote - unless the Prime Minister could give reassurance to MPs that they would have their say on the EU exit agreement.
Mrs May is expected by the end of next month to trigger Article 50, when official negotiations can then begin with Brussels over leaving the EU. The talks are due to last two years.
She has promised to walk away from the EU with nothing, rather than accept a poor offer.
Meanwhile in Scotland, MSPs have voted 90-34 against UK legislation to take Britain out of the EU.
The Supreme Court has already ruled the British Government does not have to consult the devolved administrations before it starts the formal Brexit process.
But they will not be able to shape the terms of the deal or send the Prime Minister back to Brussels to get more concessions.
The move - a verbal assurance and not a clause that will be written into the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill - was welcomed by shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer.
But a number of MPs said that a "take-it-or-leave-it" vote was not "meaningful" and offered no real choice.
And they were aware that refusing to back a final deal struck by Theresa May would leave the UK turning to WTO rules on tariffs.
Former shadow chancellor Chris Leslie put forward an amendment requiring Parliamentary approval for any deal to be written into the bill.
The Labour backbencher's clause was defeated by 326 votes to 293, a majority of 33, but seven Tory MPs voted against the Government - Ken Clarke, Bob Neill, Andrew Tyrie, Claire Perry, Anna Soubry, Antoinette Sandbach and Heidi Allen.
Six Labour MPs voted with the Government.
But as the Conservatives' working majority is just 16, if the Tory rebellion grows this could cause headaches for Downing Street further down the line in the Brexit process.
:: What does the Brexit trigger bill say?
An SNP clause stating that if Parliament voted against the Government's deal the UK would stay in the EU on "existing terms" was defeated 336-88.
Sky sources understand that a group of Tory rebels led by former attorney general Dominic Grieve wrote a note for Downing Street to consider ahead of Tuesday morning's Cabinet meeting.
In it they threatened to vote in favour of Mr Leslie's cross-party amendment on a final deal vote - unless the Prime Minister could give reassurance to MPs that they would have their say on the EU exit agreement.
Mrs May is expected by the end of next month to trigger Article 50, when official negotiations can then begin with Brussels over leaving the EU. The talks are due to last two years.
She has promised to walk away from the EU with nothing, rather than accept a poor offer.
Meanwhile in Scotland, MSPs have voted 90-34 against UK legislation to take Britain out of the EU.
The Supreme Court has already ruled the British Government does not have to consult the devolved administrations before it starts the formal Brexit process.
Chinese judge slams Trump as a 'public enemy of the rule of law'
A top Chinese judge has branded Donald Trump an "enemy of the rule of law" for his disparaging remarks about a US federal judge who suspended his travel ban.
In a personal attack on James Robart on Saturday, the US President described him as a "so-called judge" in a series of ill-tempered tweets.
He also accused the Seattle judge of opening "up our country to potential terrorists" with his "ridiculous" decision to halt the order that temporarily blocked all refugees and citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the US.
In a blog post, dated Sunday, Judge He Fan who serves at the Supreme People's Court of China, blasted Mr Trump for "insulting" Mr Robart.
He wrote that under the American system's separation of powers, a president who is dealt a judicial defeat should bear the loss silently, rather than lash out at the judge in question.
He said Mr Trump had set a poor example and lost respect for having "led the way in insulting a judge, with the Vice President and his political party swarming to his defence (and) in a country known as the most democratic and most respectful of the rule of law".
"The president who would curse a judge and the thug who would kill a judge are both public enemies of the rule of law," he wrote, referencing the recent murder of a retired judge in southern China.
"Who cares that you control the armed forces and have nuclear weapons at your disposal. Your dignity has been swept away and you are no different than a scoundrel," he added.
The US Department of Justice is challenging Mr Robart's ruling and wants the immigration restrictions reinstated.
The President's decree, signed on 27 January, barred entry for 120 days for any refugees awaiting resettlement.
Citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen were also banned for 90 days.
A US federal appeals court will later announce whether it has decided to uphold Mr Robart's judgment - or reinstate the immigration restrictions.
Government lawyers insist Mr Trump's executive order is a "lawful exercise" and that the President has clear authority to "suspend the entry of any class of aliens" in the name of national security.
They have also criticised Washington and Minnesota, the two states which launched the legal challenge against the executive order, for asking courts to "take the extraordinary step of second-guessing a formal national security judgment made by the President himself".
Three judges, randomly selected at the California-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, have been hearing the case.
If either side is unhappy with the outcome, a showdown in the Supreme Court may follow.
Lawyers representing Washington and Minnesota have warned that resuming the travel ban would "unleash chaos again" - separating families and leaving university students stranded.
Their case has been buoyed by 10 former US officials - including secretaries of state and CIA directors who served under Republican and Democratic presidents - who filed a declaration in the case arguing that the travel ban served no national security purposes.
A coalition led by some of the world's biggest tech firms is also taking on the ban, with Elon Musk's Tesla and SpaceX the latest to add their names to a list of 30 companies including Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Twitter.
It comes as the President has accused the media of deliberately minimising coverage of the threat posed by Islamic State.
A list of 78 terror attacks has been released by the White House, with the administration claiming "most" of them did not get sufficient media attention.
The Paris attacks of November 2015 and the San Bernardino shootings of December 2015, both of which received widespread attention and in-depth reporting, are among the events on the list.
In a personal attack on James Robart on Saturday, the US President described him as a "so-called judge" in a series of ill-tempered tweets.
He also accused the Seattle judge of opening "up our country to potential terrorists" with his "ridiculous" decision to halt the order that temporarily blocked all refugees and citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the US.
In a blog post, dated Sunday, Judge He Fan who serves at the Supreme People's Court of China, blasted Mr Trump for "insulting" Mr Robart.
He wrote that under the American system's separation of powers, a president who is dealt a judicial defeat should bear the loss silently, rather than lash out at the judge in question.
He said Mr Trump had set a poor example and lost respect for having "led the way in insulting a judge, with the Vice President and his political party swarming to his defence (and) in a country known as the most democratic and most respectful of the rule of law".
"The president who would curse a judge and the thug who would kill a judge are both public enemies of the rule of law," he wrote, referencing the recent murder of a retired judge in southern China.
"Who cares that you control the armed forces and have nuclear weapons at your disposal. Your dignity has been swept away and you are no different than a scoundrel," he added.
The US Department of Justice is challenging Mr Robart's ruling and wants the immigration restrictions reinstated.
The President's decree, signed on 27 January, barred entry for 120 days for any refugees awaiting resettlement.
Citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen were also banned for 90 days.
A US federal appeals court will later announce whether it has decided to uphold Mr Robart's judgment - or reinstate the immigration restrictions.
Government lawyers insist Mr Trump's executive order is a "lawful exercise" and that the President has clear authority to "suspend the entry of any class of aliens" in the name of national security.
They have also criticised Washington and Minnesota, the two states which launched the legal challenge against the executive order, for asking courts to "take the extraordinary step of second-guessing a formal national security judgment made by the President himself".
Three judges, randomly selected at the California-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, have been hearing the case.
If either side is unhappy with the outcome, a showdown in the Supreme Court may follow.
Lawyers representing Washington and Minnesota have warned that resuming the travel ban would "unleash chaos again" - separating families and leaving university students stranded.
Their case has been buoyed by 10 former US officials - including secretaries of state and CIA directors who served under Republican and Democratic presidents - who filed a declaration in the case arguing that the travel ban served no national security purposes.
A coalition led by some of the world's biggest tech firms is also taking on the ban, with Elon Musk's Tesla and SpaceX the latest to add their names to a list of 30 companies including Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Twitter.
It comes as the President has accused the media of deliberately minimising coverage of the threat posed by Islamic State.
A list of 78 terror attacks has been released by the White House, with the administration claiming "most" of them did not get sufficient media attention.
The Paris attacks of November 2015 and the San Bernardino shootings of December 2015, both of which received widespread attention and in-depth reporting, are among the events on the list.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)