A few years ago I attended a leadership conference, and as part we each took personality test. The only thing I remember from this test is that I judge people by their ability to use logic. For this reason, I cringed every time I saw an article stating that Jeff Sessions called Hawaii an island in the Pacific, like this one, or this one, or this one. My problem with these articles and all the responses to Sessions on Twitter and elsewhere, is that they misrepresent what he actually said, and respond to this straw man while missing the point of his statement.
In case you didn't check out any of those above links, here is what Sessions actually said, "I really am amazed that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific can issue an order that stops the president of the United States from what appears to be clearly his statutory and constitutional power." He does not call Hawaii an island in the Pacific. He simply states that the judge is sitting on an island in the Pacific, which is a true statement. Yes, the state of Hawaii is an archipelago of several islands, atolls and islets. However, a person in Hawaii cannot be on more than one of those islands at the same time; therefore, they are on one and only one singular island. Furthermore, all of these islands are, in fact, in the Pacific Ocean. So in conclusion, a judge in Hawaii is sitting on an island in the Pacific.
Ian Prior, a spokesperson for the Justice Department does later obfuscate the situation by stating in response to the criticism, "Hawaii is, in fact, an island in the Pacific."The largest island is called Hawaii, but the judge sits in the capital, Honolulu, which is on the island of Oahu. But Sessions point was not to make some geographical argument about Hawaii, nor to question its statehood or the legitimacy of Judge Watson's judicial powers, whom he voted to approve as a senator. Rather, Sessions is defending Trump's travel restriction Executive Order, which he sees as "clearly [Trump's] statutory and constitutional power."
Civil discourse in this country is in a terrible state, and the reaction to Sessions's comment is a prime example. Rather than taking Sessions's argument in its best light and responding to the crux of his statement, his critics have chosen to go for low hanging fruit and attempt to make him look stupid. Sure it's fun to score some partisan points and it's probably getting a lot of people a lot of clicks, likes, retweets, etc., but we could have a much more meaningful discussion.
After he fudges his comment about Hawaii, Prior does redirect attention back to Sessions's actual point "that there is a problem when a flawed opinion by a single judge can block the president’s lawful exercise of authority to keep the entire country safe." Objectively speaking, if a judge opines incorrectly and it prevents the president acting out his legitimate duties, that is a problem. Obviously, the question at hand is whether Trump's travel restrictions are legal. We are a country with limited powers and checks and balances, and I don't think - and this is me being charitable to Sessions - our Attorney General is questioning the legitimacy or value of judicial review. He simply thinks Judge Watson is wrong.
The fact that Trump campaigned explicitly on a "shutdown of Muslims entering our country" and that he later asked Rudy Giuliani how to make a Muslim ban legal will forever haunt his administration as this case moves forward. But does that mean he may never under any circumstance issue any sort of travel restriction to and from a Muslim-majority country? Furthermore, the Constitution and legislation passed by Congress give the president widespread power in regards to immigration, but defending these actions as unreviewable should raise an immediate red flag. These are the questions and conversations we should be having as a society, and it's a shame that the media would tell us all that Hawaii is a state and collection of islands.
