Posted on 09/11/2017 11:36:57 AM PDT by mandaladon
Developing...
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
This issue is not "travel". The issue is invasion. This is a most basic constitutional issue that mandates the federal government stop invasion.
The United States...shall protect each [state] against invasion
U.S. Const. art. IV, sec. 4.
Trump's argument is first and foremost a Constitutional argument, not a federal statute argument. Illegal immigration and immigration of our enemies are INVASION which the Constitution specifically mandates the federal government to prevent. Don't repeat the Lying Leftists Labels. This and related articles should be posted as an Invasion Ban Order.
Its fine that on 9-11, SCOTUS apparently agreed with this constitutional mandate that Trump is enforcing, but either way, Trump should be (and I think is) proceeding on the basis of the Rule of law of the Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the Land over the federal government including the courts and SCOTUS (U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 4).
Yep. To rule against him, the SCOTUS would lose any semblence of credibility they still have. The 9th has nothing to lose so they can do what they want. The SCOTUS is a bit more restrained from such foolishness.
Yep
Travel ban is a perversion of the language. The users of the term are perverts
I personally would agree with that on a conceptual level.
I am not anti-immigration. I am simply opposed to immigration the way we are currently doing it. (who is given priority, methods of determining suitability, etc.)
It seems to me that for a lower court judge, whose opinion is reversed by the Supreme Court, there should be some serious consequences - i.e. he should be held in contempt or at least given a stern warning.
A lower court judge whose opinions need to be reversed by SCOTUS more than once should lose standing.
These lower court judges are wasting the people’s time, obstructing executive branch authority, and violating the equal powers doctrine.
The apparent lack of negative consequences seems to encourage “judge shopping” - where opponents of the administration are able to simply shop around until they find a judge wacky enough and shameless enough to challenge any executive branch decision.
It’s great that this ruling got “slapped back”, but will the lower court judge be in anyway deterred from doing it all over again?
I think an occasional overrule is ok and to be expected. the 9th circuit needs to be fumigated however. a pattern of overturns might require some review and removal of judges.
Here’s a question if a conservative judge was constantly overturned by a liberal corrupt then would you want removal?
That’s a good point. What if the shoe was on the other foot?
However, I think that is unlikely due to the nature of conservatism, which accepts the co-equal branches and the separation of powers doctrine.
The issue here is not one court overruling another. The issue is that the courts (in this case the lower courts) are overstepping the limits of the judicial branch and venturing into the domain of the executive branch. It’s kind of like “legislating from the bench” - except in this case they are “executing from the bench”.
This overstepping behavior is a liberal MO, not a conservative MO. Luckily, the SCOTUS is behaving appropriately and disciplining liberals within its own branch. I’d like to see more discipline in this regard.
This means nothing. Case will be argued October 8 to decide if the Court writes statutes or congress does. This case is ludicrous. It is beyond legal comprehension. That statute says the President decides all issues ( as does the Constitution) but they are trying to decide if the Court can write the statue, Beyond surreal.Insanity!!
Lol lol lol. I watched that at least ten times and yes, my thoughts exactly when it comes to this SCOTUS decision.
LOL. That’s gotta be my favorite hockey GIF.
I agree.
It’s time for Kennedy to retire so we can assure somebody young takes his place why we still have a majority in the senate.
The president has to push the issue. It is his power which is being diminished and in this case it is dangerous for the country. We can’t have judges responsible for national defense.
“The president has to push the issue. It is his power which is being diminished and in this case it is dangerous for the country. We cant have judges responsible for national defense.”
The president’s best opportunity to push this is by appointing “originalist” justices whose opinions are objectively informed by the constitution, rather than construing subjective nterpretations in order to justify a “progressive” agenda.
I think Trump has already proven to be a Godsend in this regard.
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.