Posted on 02/03/2017 7:33:44 PM PST by Cheerio
Gosh, THIS ignorant decision will be overturned.
Trump has the legal power. Judge doesn’t.
Get rid of the DACA order and site this ruling
There are places the Constitution uses the word "citizens" and places it uses the word "persons." Where it says "persons," the courts have held that it protects everyone on U.S. soil.
Think about it for a minute: If the President were to sign an EO that said that all tourists from Australia now in the U.S. should be immediately arrested, tortured and then executed without a trial, would that be constitutional?
Congress has long since abdecated its responsibility. This would never happen in modern “America”
And he tried to sneak a SCJ Harriet Miers in on us.
Here’s what wikipedia reports she has been to of late:
In April 2007, Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell announced that Miers was returning to the firm.[13] In her new role at the firm, Miers has registered with the United States Department of Justice as an agent for the Pakistan Peoples Party and the Embassy of Pakistan.[14]
Well of course not...LOL
That appointment might possibly have made sense had it been to replace the ultra-liberal John Paul Stevens had he stepped down while Bush was in office. The appointment made no sense as a replacement for Sandra Day O’Connor who was already, despite some terrible rulings along the way, generally on the conservative wing of the Court (if you recall, at that point, President Bush had moved Roberts from being a replacement for O’Connor to being the replacement for Rehnquist when he passed away in the middle of the process for replacing O’Connor and O’Connor decided to stay on for a little while longer while that was worked out).
Looks like it would have potentially been a very humiliating experience for her had she actually gone through with those hearings, though, based on her initial interactions with Senators. Per Wikipedia:
On October 3, 2005, Bush nominated Miers to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, saying, “Harriet Miers will be the type of judge I said I would nominate: a good conservative judge.”[24] Miers’ nomination was criticized by people of various political views, for the fact that she had never served as a judge at any level, her perceived lack of intellectual rigor, her close personal ties to Bush, and her lack of a clear record on issues likely to be encountered as a Supreme Court Justice. Many notable conservatives vigorously criticized her nomination, and numerous conservative groups normally considered part of Bush’s political base planned to mount an organized opposition campaign.
Miers met with the Senate Judiciary Committee after her nomination and in those meetings she was ill-prepared and uninformed on the law.[25] Senator Tom Coburn told her privately that she “flunked” and “[was] going to have to say something next time.”[25] Miers had difficulty expressing her views and explaining basic constitutional law concepts.[26] Miers had no experience in constitutional law, and did not have extensive litigation experience; at her Texas law firm, she had been more of a manager.[27] In addition, Miers had rarely handled appeals and did not understand the complicated constitutional questions senators asked of her.[27] To White House lawyers, Miers was “less an attorney than a law firm manager and bar association president.”[28]
In an unprecedented move, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter and ranking Democrat Patrick Leahy also requested that Miers re-do some of her answers to the questionnaire submitted to her by the Committee, noting that her responses were “inadequate”, “insufficient”, and “insulting” because she failed or refused to adequately answer various questions with acceptable accuracy or with sufficient detail.[29] Miers also privately expressed a belief in the right to privacy to the pro-choice Arlen Specter, only to later deny that she had communicated that position.[30] Her answers also included an error on constitutional law where she mentioned an explicit constitutional right for proportional representation; though many court rulings have found that legislative and other districts of unequal population violate the equal protection clause, the right to proportional districts is not explicitly mentioned in the United States Constitution.[31]
After Miers failed in these private meetings, Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and Sam Brownback began drafting a letter asking the President’s office to turn over legal memoranda and briefs Miers had written for Bush, in order to elucidate her views on political matters.[32] Brownback and Graham knew the memos were protected by executive privilege, that the White House was not required to turn them over, and that Miers could refuse to deliver the memos and then ostensibly step down on principle.[32] Miers would later use this request as part of a face-saving exit strategy for stepping down. In her letter withdrawing her nomination, she pointed to the senators’ request for confidential documents as potentially damaging the executive branch’s independence.[33]
Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) stated shortly after the meetings that “I think, if you were to hold the vote today, she would not get a majority, either in the Judiciary Committee or on the floor.” However, Specter, the committee chairman, rejected the notion that Miers’ nomination was shaky. He said that most senators were waiting for the hearings before making up their mind. “There are no votes one way or another,” he said on CBS’ Face the Nation. On October 19, 2005, Specter and Leahy announced their intent to begin confirmation hearings for Miers on November 7, 2005.
On October 27, 2005, the White House announced that Harriet Miers had asked President Bush to withdraw her nomination, citing fears that the nomination would create a “burden for the White House and its staff and it is not in the best interest of the country.” President Bush stated that the Senate’s interest in internal White House documents “would undermine a president’s ability to receive candid counsel” and that he had “reluctantly accepted” her request. Miers was the first Supreme Court nominee to withdraw since Douglas H. Ginsburg in 1987 and the seventh to do so in U.S. history.
Bush then nominated Samuel Alito for the seat on October 31, 2005. The Senate subsequently confirmed Alito on January 31, 2006. Miers remained as White House Counsel for another year until announcing her resignation on January 4, 2007.[34] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers
That would be against the Geneva convention.
Has that ever been done?
Congress did that with SCOTUS during the Andrew Johnson years, but since the Constitution guaranteed lifetime appointments, justices stayed on until retirement. However, Johnson could not fill the vacancies.
I’m not sure about lower courts though.
If these people are under some vetting program then a quiet work slowdown would have the effect of ignoring the order.
Computers aren’t working.
Not sure I understand the new commands in the in computer program.
Power was out.
Other priorities came up and we can get to these people ....soon.
President’s Day and Washington’s Birthday are both Federal Holidays, right? /S
We ran out of #2 pencils for the forms...
Printer weren’t working...
States might be able to convince courts to remove legal residents and visitors already here from the EO’s web.. and they probably should. (I think that has already been remedied by the administration)
But no way in hell the ban on those who are not citizens or not on US soil comes close to getting touched seriously in the end.
The courts have no jurisdiction in other countries or non citizens who are not on our soil. Who we give visas to is entirely a legislative/executive matter.
They can do nothing to stop the banning of travel from certain areas by the president.
Only thing that could stop it is the congress passing legislation that curtailed a presidents power in the statute. Legislation he would have to sign. Or have his veto overridden.
It would not be constitutional to kick someone off SCOTUS (other than via impeachment and conviction).
Eliminating the seat would be, but the justice would have to retire.
Another wrinkle is that lower federal courts allow retired judges to come back and hear cases. This is not allowed at the SCOTUS level, although Obama proposed it.
Just another reason why Bush was seen as a traitor to conservative values, and Jeb was rejected.
The judicial branch is delineated as being responsible for adjudicating legal disputes under the constitution and laws. In no way does it grant them the right to determine base 'constitutionality'. That role was asserted in Marbury, and has been honored through practice and habit since then.
But the real crux of the EO injunction is that it didn't directly address the EO. Rather, the plaintiffs (WA/MN) claimed property loss. So, the big question is whether a contractual right trumps a national security responsibility.
The left cleverly shopped this case in the hope of achieving a peripheral affect ie indirectly stopping the EO. I'm curious to see if the courts actually want to test their authority. A constitutional crisis would emerge if Trump ignores the order, and then claims the courts have no jurisdiction.
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.