Article Critique Assignment Paper: Travel Ban Hearing

Article Critique – Travel Ban Hearing
Your Name
February 16, 2017
Your Institution of Affiliation
The article mainly discussed the debate that transpired between August Flentje, the lawyer representing the Justice department, and the Judges of the court appeal (Ninth Circuit), with regards to the executive order imposed by Trump which temporarily banned Muslims from entering the country. According to the article, the argument of the Justice department (Flentje) states that there is a “high-level of risks” of risk that comes from the seven countries included in the temporary ban (Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen). This high-levels of risk, in turn, is what caused the president to impose the temporary ban under an executive order. However, the article also stated that this ban was lifted by the district court for the reason that “the action was motivated by part by animus". Nonetheless, the argument went on and on and by the end of the article, the author emphasized the Ninth circuit’s liberalist ideologies and stated that this might have an effect to the decision that would be made, despite the “technical nature” of the debate.
In my opinion, the article published by Jarrett and de Vogue (2017), was able to effciently discuss the events that trasnpired between the debate. It focused on the technical aspects of what each side have said, how they reacted, and how they relate to one another. As an example, the article stated the debate between Judge William Canby and Flentje, stated as;
"Could he do that?" asked the judge. "Would anyone be able to challenge that?"
For the Justice Department, Flentje argued that the travel restrictions in Trump's executive order did not amount to a Muslim ban. "That's no...