Support Free Republic, Folks!
Posted on 04/23/2018 6:56:47 PM PDT by jazusamo
Much of president’s agenda is riding on outcome of case
What the Supreme Court does with President Trump’s travel ban case, which reaches the justices this week, is likely to determine whether courts across the country give him the usual deference due a president and allow him leeway to pursue his immigration crackdown — or whether they join the anti-Trump resistance determined to thwart him at every turn.
From battles in California, Illinois and Pennsylvania over sanctuary cities, to illegal immigrant teens gaining abortion rights, to the border wall, to Mr. Trump’s attempts to limit some paths to legal immigration and to cancel the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program for illegal immigrant Dreamers, immigration rights activists and the administration have been battling on nearly every front of the issue.
Perhaps a dozen potentially major cases are working their way through the district and appeals courts. The president has not fared particularly well, with judges peering through his tweets, guessing at his motives and generally siding with the anti-Trump resistance.
Mr. Trump is looking to get back on track with the justices because much of his agenda is riding on the outcome.
Josh Blackman, a professor at the South Texas College of Law, said if the justices decide to read into Mr. Trump’s past statements and use them against him, given his prolific caustic remarks, “he should just resign because the courts can enjoin everything he does.”
“If you don’t give the president the presumption of regularity that he’s due, the administration is done. It’s like impeachment without impeachment,” Mr. Blackman said.
He has urged judges to be cautious in going down that route.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
haven’t they ruled on this twice already?
Will the SCOTUS tilt toward its judicial activist perversions?
I don’t believe SCOTUS has, only Appeals Courts.
Bump!
Support Free Republic, Folks!
“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
— Thomas Jefferson
They aren’t elected.
Who will be arguing the case for Trump?
Someone appointed by RosenWeasel?
It is an absolute travesty this is even in question.
We have three justices that care about what the Constitution says.
The others think they know better.
Exactly. SCROTUS has no say in the matter.
I believe the Solicitor General or one of his staff.
The current Solicitor General is Noel Francisco and was appointed by President Trump.
Not only does the SCOTUS need to uphold Trump’s presidential prerogatives, they need to let it be known that no more BS from inferior courts on this matter.
If judges want to start those games, sooner or later Congress will limit their powers.
I don't want the Supreme Court to support any president. I want them to support the Constitution and the rule of law, only.
Is this coming up for oral arguments, or are they expecting a decision of some kind. I thought the exdcerpt was unclear. Also, no mention of any case names. Sadly, this is what passes for reporting these days.
Good point, should have thought more about that. Constitutional presidential powers in the executive branch.
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.