They didn’t rule on the constitutionality of the law so they broke no law in that respect.
They took the weakest argument, that not allowing them in hurt Washington state etc which is still BS but had the EO been written better this would have been no problem.
You allow wiggle room and snakes and rats will find a way.
I expect the next EO to resolve the issue.
OR the next...or maybe the next.
The thing is President Trump could have sent this packing a day later at the appeals court. There was evidence of 20+ crimes where refugees from these 7 countries were ARRESTED and President Trump's appeal did not present it until later this WEEK. All of this smells FISHY.
Like shadow boxing in the dark.
and all the while the American People that President Trump vowed to protect go unprotected on our Southern borders and at every Airport and US Consulate Office because he will not finish the deal and take this judge to the ground. He has the legal standing and he knows it but will not or does not WANT to interfere with a deal that has been cut.
Having followed closely it is not my view that the EO is poorly constructed nor that the rollout was botched.
To wit: There are 100’s of thousands fake green cards and visas out in the world. Of the 109 asked extra questions the first weekend, only 28 were held for long questioning. Of them 12 were deported immediately. The rest were released into the country. All good, in my view. An excellent roll out.
Regarding the orders, the West Coast judges are saying that if someone has a visa or green card they have 5A due process rights, whether they’ve ever been here or not. Thats make believe. The West coast courts gave Washington State standing because they paid for THREE visas, that in West Coast jurisprudence constitued standing and irreparable harm. Again, make believe.
Regarding likelihood of success, the courts ignored the federal statute that doesn’t recommend deference but MANDATES deference on this particular matter to the President.
So they gave standing, a constitutional right, irreparable harm and likelihood of success all based on make believe.
Finally, the court’s make believe has created a Constitutional crises, whether they meant to or not. The judge there in SanFran that made the sua sponte request for briefs and en banc hearing sure knows they did. In sum, if POTUS CiC believes there is a national security risk he is in dereliction of duty, an impeachable high crime, if he obeys the outstanding orders. If he ignores the courts orders he will create a national frenzy playing into all of the libtard excess we’ve seen since November 8th.
Seeing the influx of entrants from the 7 states these last 10 days, it is entirely possible someone blows something up before legal resolution is clarified. If stuff gets blown up becasue Trump listened to the pissant Seattle judge and the only slightly less ‘pissanty’ three judge panel from SanFran guess who’s in trouble? It ain’t them.
This issue is quite clearly totally up to the President, and not appropriate for Judicial review. Since the Boston judge had already reviewed and stated reasons why the stay should be lifted, it is especially egregious that another judge would interfere.
The judge in the 9th circuit was flat wrong, and acted in an unconstitutional over reach. It's a total flouting of the law, and these judges all need to pay a penalty for it.
>
You allow wiggle room and snakes and rats will find a way.
>
I propose that lawyers not be allowed for any Legislative seat, for they intentionally write the law as you note.
IMO, it’s a revolving door w/ the Judiciary to argue the nuances of the word ‘is’ (O’Care ‘tax’ vs. ‘fee’; never ‘bout A1S8\etc.); and where clear language exists, they redefine or ignore (ala 2nd)