Posted on 02/09/2017 4:01:56 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Vanity Discussion Question: Can the president ignore the court order and continue with his valid executive order?
It appears the president is acting in accordance to his constitutional powers and specifically in accordance to laws regarding immigration and has been challenged and overridden by an unconstitutionally political activist (liberal) court.
If so, can he can he continue with his valid orders controlling the actions of the executive branch? No doubt this would set up a "constitutional crisis" but this is going to happen soon anyway as it's the only way we will ever restore constitutional government, ie, the liberal activist courts will have to be toppled eventually. Why not now while we have a strong president and Republican majorities in both housees of congress?
Just askin'.
Agree 100%. See my post 239 on this thread.
I believe he did exactly that when the SCOTUS ruled against the EPA. I can’t recall what exactly it was about but I remember Obama essentially ignored the ruling.
I also like some other advice on this thread as well - such as issuing another EO that might make it harder for these yahoo’s to reject. In any event I would not count on this 4-4 court for much.
Well, if the SCOTUS upholds the 9th Circus, then it is the entire federal judiciary that has gone rogue.
This issue isn't even remotely close to being anything that should go against the President. It's insane on its face, and the only thing that now stands between the collapse of the rule of law and the survival of the Republic is the USSC...
All Trump has to do is ask concerned citizens to come to DC !
yep
Or ... it might be time for Congress to update [28 U.S. Code § 44 - Appointment, tenure, residence and salary of circuit judges]
Court cases are not being handled in an expeditious manner, therefor: Double or triple the number of judges in each appellate court, all nominated by Trump and approved by the current Congress. Also change the rules that govern how smaller panels within each court are assigned to cases such that any panel consists of a majority of new judges. And reduce the requirements for impeachment to a simple majority of both houses of Congress. If Dims complain that this is an obviously biased political maneuver, say “So what else is new ? You started it.”
This in addition to carving the 9th Circuit into three or four jurisdictions — there is no way that a single mid-level court should cover 75 million people.
Jay Sekulo now on Hannity said Trump could issue a new EO tonight with some stipulations addressed, and let Washington state and DUh 9th to re-litigate the whole thing over again.
The judges are guilty of judicial overreach and violated the US Constitution, for which they took an oath. Congress can impeach them. The partisan hack-judge in Seattle for sure should be impeached!
“It’s actually setting up Trump to appoint more conservatives to the bench at every level and particularly in the seat currently occupied by Ruth Bader Ginsberg.”
Didn’t Clinton fire about a hundred federal judges when he was elected? I could be wrong about that, but if Clinton did, Trump should do the same now.
sound advice!!!
Change just 1 letter and re-submit.
Repeat each time if needed for 4 to 8 years.
Of course they have the authority. They get to decide whether the President is following the law that congress has passed. Hence the separation of powers. If congress passes a law then and the Executive branch doesn’t follow it then the courts jump in to decide who is right. That being said when the court issues an opinion based on what they “feel” instead of the law.. then we have a problem. Congress just needs to pass a law that says exactly what Trump wants to do and that ends the story.
“He” being Trump as per the headline.
I did not intend to imply that there was anything wrong with the EO or with implementation of it. The problem was in failure to anticipate the opposition it would encounter and properly prepare to deal with it. I concede that circumstances may have required that they not wait for their own team to be in place in the Justice Department, but they could have mitigated the damage by having a non political US Attorney acting as Attorney General rather than the openly partisan hack who was acting in that capacity. After the debacle with her openly opposing the EO and her subsequent dismissal, they should have anticipated a court challenge and had a competent team prepared to present a vigorous defense. Certainly when the appeal was made, a competent legal case should have been presented.
I know this is easy to second guess the action by someone else but I only hope our side learns from this rather than just dwelling on how unfair it is. The opposition is not going to quit nor are they going to worry about fair play. Whether this should be or not, it is now a legal matter in the courts system and will be played out under the rules of the court system. My point about hiring a lawyer well versed in this type litigation rather than depending on Justice Department lawyers who may not have your interest foremost in their minds is only common sense. While Attorney General Sessions is now on the job and is very good, he has not practiced law for over 20 years and has many other things on his plate. Regardless of anyone’s opinion of lawyers, the stakes are too high in this case to not get the best hired gun available.
I apologize for my lack of clarity. I believe we have the same goal in mind.
I think Trump can make the public understand why he does things the way he does. It might be the people he surrounds himself with or a gift he has but he gets to the heart of the matter and then he tells like it is.
He has chosen to shine a spotlight on the judiciary. It has let Americans down and they exercise far too much control over our freedoms and our future. Too many Americans are ignorant of this and Trump means to teach them.
I don’t believe this nation will survive Islam without major changes returning the original idea of what it means to be an American. We can’t get to that point without a judiciary whose purpose is limited and it’s power checked.
.
Yes he can disregard the court; they lack venue in this matter.
He never should have paid any attention to the kangaroo court. It weakens the statutes and the presidency to kowtow to them.
.
The courts provoked the constitutional crisis.
Trump can quell it by ignoring them.
.
That’s brilliant.
The court is effectively saying a president cannot enforce the law. It has no right to do so.
This is a Constitutional crisis.
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.