(I hope...:)
A temporary block, on a block, on a ban. I’ll take it, regardless. At least it’s a step in the right direction.
Why only temporarily?
Praise God!
Even the Supremes are seeing something wrong with a lower federal judiciary running amok:
http://trump.news/2017-02-01-is-trumps-refugee-ban-illegal-the-past-five-presidents-didnt-think-so.html
“That’s rich, considering that Obama – and former presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan – all did the very same thing as Trump at one or more times during their administrations.
As noted by the CRS brief:
Ronald Reagan – Five times
George H. W Bush – One time
Bill Clinton – 12 times
George W. Bush – Six times
Barack Obama – 19 times
“Where was the Left’s outrage then? What’s not mentioned in the brief is that Hillary Clinton’s State Department suspended all refugee applications from Iraq for six months in 2011, without a presidential action.”
It’s way past time to get serious about national security.
A G A I N !
Can the 9th Circuit be disbanded else broken up or replaced if the keep getting overturned?
YES!!
My community-college president is crying. Another e-mail tirade coming in 24 hours
(I hope...:)
Evidently 5-4 with Kennedy making the difference. It ain’t a decisive decision. Waaaaay too close.
Another smackdown of the Ninth Circus.
This is when a Real American Man as Speaker of the House would immediately begin Impeachment proceedings against the Judges that believed they had the Constitutional Authority to OVER RULE the supreme Court.
Common sense finally.
This issue is not "travel". The issue is invasion. This is a most basic constitutional issue that mandates the federal government stop invasion.
The United States...shall protect each [state] against invasion
U.S. Const. art. IV, sec. 4.
Trump's argument is first and foremost a Constitutional argument, not a federal statute argument. Illegal immigration and immigration of our enemies are INVASION which the Constitution specifically mandates the federal government to prevent. Don't repeat the Lying Leftists Labels. This and related articles should be posted as an Invasion Ban Order.
It’s fine that on 9-11, SCOTUS apparently agreed with this constitutional mandate that Trump is enforcing, but either way, Trump should be (and I think is) proceeding on the basis of the Rule of law of the Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the Land over the federal government including the courts and SCOTUS (U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 4).
It seems to me that for a lower court judge, whose opinion is reversed by the Supreme Court, there should be some serious consequences - i.e. he should be held in contempt or at least given a stern warning.
A lower court judge whose opinions need to be reversed by SCOTUS more than once should lose standing.
These lower court judges are wasting the people’s time, obstructing executive branch authority, and violating the equal powers doctrine.
The apparent lack of negative consequences seems to encourage “judge shopping” - where opponents of the administration are able to simply shop around until they find a judge wacky enough and shameless enough to challenge any executive branch decision.
It’s great that this ruling got “slapped back”, but will the lower court judge be in anyway deterred from doing it all over again?
This means nothing. Case will be argued October 8 to decide if the Court writes statutes or congress does. This case is ludicrous. It is beyond legal comprehension. That statute says the President decides all issues ( as does the Constitution) but they are trying to decide if the Court can write the statue, Beyond surreal.Insanity!!