I'm not crazy. I've practiced law for over 35 years and litigated probably 200+ cases where my clients either sought or were the target of federal court TROs or injunctions. I've also clerked for two federal circuit courts of appeals and know the standards applicable to TROs in a federal, constitutional context. District Judge Gorton in Boston got the analysis exactly right. The so-called Judge, Robert, wrote a laughable and incomprehensible opinion that ought to serve as the basis for commitment proceedings rather than praise from any real lawyer. Despite its liberal track record I really thought the Ninth Circuit would immediately stay Robart's TRO. On the SCTUS. If these Judges want to run the country, they should be required to get elected first.
Exactly right.
Can you give us insight of the way ahead if the cowardly House Republicans stick to their current "plan", which is "Do - Nothing"?
What are Trump's options?
1. Can he issue another order?
2. If the 9th "Circus" refuses to act, can he appeal to the SC?
3. Can he order agencies to comply in such a way as to go around the Seattle judge's order?
What's next?
I fear that if Trump is defeated on this, he will be severely weakened politically.
Thank you for speaking up.
Book marking your post
The judiciary has to be reigned in. When this sort of thing happens, congress should immediately move to limit said court’s jurisdiction or in this case, start impeachment proceedings against the rogue judge.
bulldaddy - I haven’t read all the details regarding the opinion of the federal district court judge in boston, but the opinion of the judge in boston seems on its face to conflict with the opinion of the 9th federal district court judge. I think im missing something here, but why did the 9th circuit judge’s opinion prevail in this instance before the fed ct of appeals denied request for immediate stay?
Absolutely +1 and Bravo !
Would it be fair, therefore, to say that the Judge in Washington has declared USCode 102.18 (ref?) is “unconstitutional”?
If so, has he over stepped his APPELLATE authority (Marbury v. Madison) in making this determination?
IOW, his “opinion” is not enforceable?
If this were British Parliament and you could hear me, I would be hollering and applauding loudly however they do in debates. Well said and thank you for the information.
See me, being as stubborn as I am, would change all the wording and do another EO That says basically the same thing. I’d keep doing that until the courts run out of judges and willpower.
The situation is crazy. There are 2,758, according to Wikipedia, district court judges in the U.S. Imagine if the President is subject to restraint on any given day by any of them who happens to have a case before him on an issue where he disagrees with the determinations of the Federal process. Just issue an "indefinite TRO" until he can decide the issue.
That is, of course, an invitation to insanity. There are only two questions here, did the President have the discretion to exclude a class of individuals from this country? Did he exercise that discretion "reasonably" i.e. did he have a soundly stated rationale for his decision.
Since one court concluded Yes to the latter, in a carefully worded opinion, the matter is concluded. Other judges may disagree with the rationale, but they are not empowered to substitute their judgment for the President's judgment.