I think there is merit in doing it that way, as the brute-force approach will provoke a constitutional crisis and do nothing to resolve the underlying conflict. Taking it to the Supreme Court will do so and set a precedent.
Nor am I worried that SCOTUS will uphold the ban, because they know if they try something that unconstitutional that Justice Gorsuch will soon be seated and all it will take is a second case to put things right.
>I think there is merit in doing it that way, as the brute-force approach will provoke a constitutional crisis and do nothing to resolve the underlying conflict. Taking it to the Supreme Court will do so and set a precedent.
That’s probably how Trump sees it. Hope that you and Trump are right.
I disagree.
Recognizing the supremacy of the Seattle judge's restraining order was a strategic blunder of huge, and possibly historic proportions.
The President's EO was supported by statute law, historical precedent (including USSC decisions), and the Constitution. He was well within his authority to issue the travel restriction order.
THAT is the real constitutional crisis.
The Seattle judge has nothing supporting his ruling but feelings, opinions, partisan opposition, and pure speculation. His ruling was illegal on its face, and should have been condemned by the Trump administration, while they went about the legal business of ensuring our country's national security.
Instead, the administration has put itself into the position of asking for the judiciary's permission to do their jobs.
Now that they've been granted the power to overturn the very existence of the executive branch, they may very well do so - at least for this President.