Posted on 04/25/2018 10:15:22 AM PDT by John W
During arguments at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, the justices seemed, by a narrow margin, to be leaning toward upholding the the third iteration of the Trump travel ban.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is often the deciding vote in close cases, for example, made repeated comments suggesting that the court does not usually second-guess a president's national security decisions even in the context of an immigration law that is seen as banning discrimination based on nationality.
If the court does decide in favor of the government a decision is expected in June it would be a big win for one of the pillars of the president's politics. It's an issue that animates the bases of both parties, appealing to the grievance politics of Trump's supporters and outraging the moral sensibilities of the left. Between the travel ban and the proposed wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, that idea of exclusion is fueling the resistance to Trump and firing up liberals for this year's midterms.
(Excerpt) Read more at npr.org ...
Three words:
Post
Constitutional
America
You mean bath house Barry’s lover?
As it shouldn't. If the President needs a check on national security, it must only come from Congress...not the courts.
“Post Constitutional America”
Lol,it’s a phrase and nothing more. Do you believe it too be true because you say it?
Lol
Siding with the argument that the president controls foreign policy over third-rate hack circuit judges is correct.
Deciding that judges can control a president’s foreign policy decisions absolutely ensures a revolution against the judiciary.
Decide wisely, USSC.
After other SCOTUS decisions unfavorable to the left, the left took the cases again to a lower court and got SCOTUS overruled, believe it or not. Do not be surprised if, losing this case, the left makes still another try, despite the SCOTUS ruling.
“Some Federal Judge from Hawaii will simply issue a stay order on the Supreme Court decision, then overturn them later this month.”
Suppose we find a federal judge who rules that Americans can buy full-auto weapons and that abortion is illegal in every state.
The judiciary would explode, and humpty-dumpty’s men could not put him back together again.
I believe it to be too good to be true BECAUSE I say it.
I like the cut of your jib, mister.
In a sane world, a judge wouldn’t rule that a program started by a previous director of HS could not be canceled without congressional approval (even though congress didn’t create it).
Well some diehard liberals like bringing in more jihadis and rapists, most likely voters do not.
Trump respects both the Constitution and the process. He had abided by all the rulings, as he should.
Yes.
Does Trump understand the Constitution?
Not necessarily
He had abided by all the rulings, as he should.
No.
He and we can and SHOULD stand against unconstitutional federal acts and decisions which are acts and decisions of tyranny.
I believe Trump is doing the best he can. I'm afraid his advisers are law-school trained where they DON'T teach the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended which is the greatest reason why we now have a mostly tyrannical, unconstitutional $4 trillion government.
Good one.
Not tired of winning yet.
I can’t help but think that woman who grabbed the mike in Texas had something to do with their possible action.
Can you say “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.