Posted on 04/27/2017 10:14:33 AM PDT by OddLane
To the surprise of no one, an Obama bundler sitting on the 9th Circuit has enjoined Section 9(a) of President Trump’s executive order targeting sanctuary cities. Just like the federal judges who blocked previous, eminently Constitutional executive orders tackling this problem, this one used the non-textual statements of the President as justification for his actions.
For those of you who would like a more detailed explanation of why using speeches, statements, and other non-statutory words by lawmakers and the executive branch to make law is such a bad idea, I’d recommend reading the late Justice Scalia’s A Matter Of Interpretation...
(Excerpt) Read more at american-rattlesnake.org ...
the Left is using lawfare to get what they can’t get by the ballot box.
It’s a loser’s strategy: they got nothing.
Those judges and those circuits will pay for this. It’s so obvious is political.
I’m surprised that the DOJ hasn’t called upon the judges to come to washington and explain their decisions — as a criminal investigation because I’m pretty confident that they’ve been contacted by the CTRL-LEFT.
The language is pure and clean. But I’m glad Trump is not falling into the trap being set — him ignoring federal judges could likely lead to impeachment.
But that window is closing fast. To the point where it will become a liability to him if he doesn’t challenge the court.
In either regards the courts suffer prestige and drags on public opinion. Things that they can never politically regain.
It’s just common sense as they don’t mean anything. The only thing that should be reviewed is the actual text of the order. To do otherwise seems very amateurish.
Those judges and those circuits will pay for this.’
When? How?
The Supreme court political question doctrine.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/political_question_doctrine
“... Rather, the Supreme Court has held that federal courts should not hear cases which deal directly with issues that Constitution makes the sole responsibility of the other branches of government. Baker v Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962). Therefore, the Court has held that the conduct of foreign relations is the sole responsibility of the executive branch, and cases challenging the way the executive is using that power present political questions. Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297 (1918). Similarly, the Court has held that lawsuits challenging congress’ procedure for impeachment proceedings present political questions. Nixon v. United States”
They will pay over time in prestige and public opinion. And perhaps a nice B’tch slapping from the Supreme court.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.