Posted on 06/02/2017 1:33:21 PM PDT by NoCmpromiz
Understand what's at stake here, because it's a lot more than the implementation of one policy. What the administration is asserting here is exactly what they should be - that the lower courts should not be mindreading the president's intentions based on statements on the campaign trail or anything else. If his action is legal and he has the authority to take it, that's it, full stop. Game over. Whatever you might think he really wants to do is irrelevant.
It seems almost inconceivable to me that SCOTUS doesn't deliver at least five votes affirming that argument. It ought to deliver nine.
But the first step was in asking them, and that has now happened:
Thursday's filing reflects many of the same arguments that administration lawyers have made in the lower courts. The filing asserts that the court "should not consider campaign-trail comments" and that "virtually all of the president's statements on which the court of appeals relied were made before he assumed office" and before he took an oath to defend the Constitution. "Taking that oath marks a profound transition from private life to the nation's highest public office, and manifests the singular responsibility and independent authority to protect the welfare of the nation that the Constitution reposes in the president," it reads.
The administration is asking for quick action from the high court that would freeze the lower court rulings and allow the policy to be put in place. Both sides would file their legal arguments about whether the policy violates the Constitution or federal law over the summer and the justices could hear argument as early as the fall, under the schedule proposed by the administration Thursday.
The Supreme Court is almost certain to step into the case because it almost always has the final say when a lower court strikes down a federal law or presidential action.
Assuming the Supremes find in favor of the White House here, they're doing more than just allowing the travel ban. They're telling the lower courts that they have to follow the law, and not attempt to guess the motives of the president - for good or for ill.
This would be an affirmation of the checks and balances already baked into our system of government via the Constitution. Let's say for the sake of argument that President Trump, in his heart of hearts, really wanted to ban all Muslims from entering the United States. His actual rhetoric doesn't support that belief, but for the sake of argument let's say he did. Having won the election and gained the power of the presidency, he put an executive order in place, but the order did not attempt to ban all Muslims. It stuck to a very narrow and temporary ban on people from six countries identified by the previous administration as tied to terrorism.
So why didn't the man who dreamed of banning Muslims actually do so? Because he didn't have the authority to do so, and he knew it, so he limited his order to only what he had the authority to do.
In other words, our system of government already did its job. It doesn't allow evil men to do evil things just because they win elections and they feel like it.
What the liberal judges who ruled in these cases were saying is that Trump should not even be allowed to take legal actions clearly within his authority, because he is a bad man and he would do terrible things with his authority if he could. In other words, because of what these judges think about the president, he should not be allowed to govern at all. Even the clear authority granted to the president must not be allowed to be exercised by this president, or so say the lower court judges.
The Supremes need to do much more than reinstate the travel ban, although they certainly need to do that. They need to also smack down once and for all the idea that federal judges can block clearly legal actions because of the motives they imagine, or because of their personal opinions of the president. If they don't, no president will be able to govern, because any federal judge who feels like it will be able to strike down his actions using whatever legal rationale he decides to come up with.
That makes this one of the most important cases SCOTUS has taken on in a very long time.
Yeah, we’re hoping it doesn’t come to that. Though there is the CWII ping list, as we do see some signs such a thing might be possible.
I read that liberals are trying to persuade Kennedy not to retire, out of fear of another conservative nomination by Trump.
The President should have Banned All Immigration as soon as the inferior courts stopped this. If we can not screen for terrorists according to the court, then we are Stopping ALL Immigrants from entering.
That certainly would have voided the usurping courts decisions... ;-) If everyone is banned there is no religious discrimination which is what the leftists used in opposition.
I hope it doesn’t come to that either. But I suspect the left is working themselves up to justifying mass murder of anyone who doesn’t agree with them which is nothing new given that they’ve killed over 100 million people in the last 100 years.
Meaning I don’t think we’ll have a choice in the matter.
Should be 9-0 but likely 5-4 although 6-3 would not shock me.
About time.
I see some of that as well, and I’m not getting on the bus to the reeducation camp. My wife’s long time nail people, Vietnamese immigrants, just told her they spent 7 years in a refugee camp after escaping the Communists. They didn’t have 2A.
And thus these judges exceeded their authority and should be removed from office.
You’re quite right. A man with CLEAR authority and responsibility should never ASK anything of anyone unless he wants to risk damaging that authority. What will Trump do if the court upholds? Anyone who doesn’t believe that there is enough political pressure between the uniparty and elites in general to come to bear on the court today isn’t paying attention.
That is true. But it's probably easier to hope the SCOTUS slaps them hard rather than try to wade through all the separate actions it would take to clean those judges them off the slate..
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.