Self ping....????...hey that felt...??..good
under circumstances where the order can be shown to violate the law. As an extreme example, you can’t order a federal employee to rob a bank. These cases turn on whether the ban is legal or illegal. The court in Hawaii says religious discrimination is more important than national security so the ban is illegal.
There is one caveat: Executive orders are subject to judicial review. Thank John Marshall and Marbury v. Madison. But really wasn’t used until the Truman era. It’s why Obama’s DACA EO’s were held up by the courts. Except in this case, the courts are wrong.
The courts do not have standing to stop the POTUS concerning immigration in any manner.
As per Mark Levin and several others.
The entrenched Democratic governing apparatus will never allow Trump to govern.
The state and national Republican majority surrender monkeys will always surrender.
That is the way it has been, is, and will always be.
1. Fill Supreme Court vacancy
2. Bring it the court.
3. EO upheld
“Question: Are these judges unconstitutionally (if my understanding of EOs is accurate) meddling in another branch of gov’t?”
My answer (note - I’m not a lawyer, just a retired pollster, but I play a lawyer on the Internet): This has never been litigated. These judges are expanding the bounds of judicial power, and technically the Supreme Court gets to decided if their overreach is constitutional. President Trump can allocate staff in a manner that slows visa approvals to zero. He doesn’t need the order to get the job done. I’m not sure he wants this to go to SCOTUS until the 9th justice is approved.