Posted on 02/07/2017 4:49:44 PM PST by Steelfish
wow, what a shock.
and i bet those Obama era DOJ attorneys were really keen on defending the legal EO from President Trump.
So a district court judge of any state can thwart any President on matters of national security...right.
Actually, the whole farce is absurd. Trump wins either way, because: (a) the 9th or SC decide in favor of the federal government; or (b) Trump ignores/defies the courts and challenges Congress to impeach.
Could you imagine the constitutional crisis that would develop if Congress where to accede to the court's assertion that they had primacy with respect to national security? That's what they would have to do to impeach Trump, since he's merely following a law legally established by Congress.
If Congress where to take that step, they themselves would be in violation of their own sworn oaths. The Constitution clearly delineates the respective powers and responsibilities between Congress, the executive and judiciary. Congress holds all the power, with significant leeway assigned to the president to carry out necessary executive duties, but very limited, if any power reserved for the courts.
In fact, the very notion of judicial review as to determining base constitutionality is an asserted role (Marbury), not one actually stipulated in the constitution. Only through custom and tradition has it been allowed to "play" at governance - as long as they minded their manners and stayed within general bounds.
For example, what if the SC had found Lincoln in violation of the constitution with respect to the Union waging the Civil war? What do you think Lincoln would have done? Seriously, this whole thing is laughable on its face, which is why Trump is going to win and the courts are going to lose. They can either lose quietly or they can choose to lose "bigly".
The President can ignore these Judges but he’s giving them a chance and they are Failing
If the 9th Circuit rules against Trump on this then the congress (republican controlled) should specifically REMOVE from the federal courts the jurisdiction to rule on immigration issues (the Constitution provides for this except for the Supreme Court) and then Trump should re-issue the proclamation -it’s a proclamation rather than an EO- banning immigration from the same terrorist countries.
You are right. The SCOTUS has already ruled decisively on this issue in the past So I cannot believe the 9th will not overturn the Seattle judge.
They should, but they won't. A number of the Republicans are against him, also. Trump is essentially a third party President and all of the Rats plus a lot of the Republicans are trying to slow or stop him. This is the so-called uniparty fighting to bring him down.
I assume the TRO only applies to those that have valid visas and green cards. The court can’t make the Government issue issue new visas. If they try, I would slow walk everyone
“Friedland asked if the government had connected any immigrants from the seven countries to terrorism.”
That is not a requirement of this or any other President deciding to limit immigration from certain places. If the court does not understand that they should leave the bench.
If I was Trump I would withdraw the current ban and immediately replace it with a one year moratorium on all immigration citing national security.
I'm not surprised.
Trump's case is being presented by employees of the relentlessly Hard Left U.S. Department of Justice.
Bottom Line - if your case depends on a Conservative interpretation of the Constitution, you need to hire lifelong passionate Conservative lawyers.
Scooter Libby and George Zimmerman learned that the hard way.
Libby hired a smooth, politically connected, Leftist Black lawyer who decided Libby's best defense was to admit that crimes had been committed, but Bush and Cheney should be on trial, not Scooter.
Scooter got convicted.
George Zimmerman's first lawyers were two passionate defenders of the Second Amendment and self-defense.
Then, Zimmerman decided that he, too, needed a politically connected, Left wing, capitulationist lawyer.
A week later, Zimmerman, in a prison jump suit and shackles, was apologizing to Trayvon Martin's parents in a televised Court hearing.
Appealing a lower court decision to the liberal ninth circus based on the law is a fool’s mission.After reviewing the 3 judges sitting on the appeal, it is relatively easy to predict a 2 to 1 decision to affirm the lower court injunction. One will decide based on the law and two will decide based on their “feelings”, i.e. political value system, and call it law.
Yep. I have been thinking that if Trump deems it to be in the interest of national safety to impose and immigration ban (as he is empowered to do), then he would be duty bound to pull rank on the Federal courts, and asserting the co-equal right of the executive branch to disregard the court orders. The courts are just asking for this to happen. The courts are not “the boss of” the president (as my kids use to say).
The 9th either smacks down Robart, or the Supreme Court will 8-0.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Do not rely on Roberts (the contortionist jurist), The Wise Latina, Kagan, or Ginsberg to follow the law.
I was astonished to hear the judges asking “do you have any evidence” of the risk to the US that is the basis for Trump’s order. First of all, wouldn’t any such evidence be classified information? And, secondly, wouldn’t a judge pressing the lawyer for such information constitute pressuring a government official to divulge classified, and possibly Top Secret information?
Bad timing.
Would have been better to have Sessions and Gorsuch in place first.
But no one really anticipated the depth of liberal perfidy that we are seeing in the judiciary.
It’s going to be one hell of a fight the next four years.
Liberals were ready to celebrate the completion of their takeover when Donald Trump and Bitter Clingers in flyover country rudely intruded.
I do not understand why Trump has not issued a new, slightly different executive order.
That would be that.
And then keep doing that every time some stupid judge abuses his authority.
I suspect the ninth will have the final say. SCOTUS will split down the middle. The ninth’s decision will stand. Important b/c similar legal methodology will be applied to stop the wall and prevent expelling illegal aliens. Remember, the plaintiffs were granted standing due to potential economic damage. Other courts never granted standing due to economic damage. So on the left coast, this will be the methodology employed to destroy our immigration law. Past time to throw out the black robed tyrants.
Truer words have not been spoken.
We lose then.
I heard the DOJ lawyer was terrible, not that it matters.
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.