Posted on 02/10/2017 7:22:06 AM PST by mandaladon
Unless Trump’s goal is to score political points by riling-up the public against the Federal Judiciary.
(which I hope it’s not, as the terror risk imposed by these people is increasing every day).
The omission was deliberate. I think the 9th Circus is cocky under the current circumstances given that SCOTUS is split 4-4 and the lib justices are very prone to circle the wagons when it suits them.
But how long is it going to take to get through all the pontificating and get him sworn in?
Issue new EO specifically excluding authorized visa holders and residents.
Or, as suggested here on another thread, take it to the FISA court on national security grounds.
I have to believe he is quietly accomplishing his aims by other means. He doesn’t seem to be all that concerned about it. That’s why I feel like he knows what he’s going to do.
I agree. At the very least, it might make liberal judges work on the weekend!
The President could actually have a little fun with them first, say an Executive Order:
In order to maintain the safety of our Jurist’s, ALL members of the Federal Judiciary SHALL be prohibited form having anyone in their employ or employed on their behalf to be in possession of ANY firearm, Weapon, or Ammunition.
FOR THEIR SAFETY!
Or ignore it completely...
I think SCOTUS is the right route because it will set the legal precedent for future EOs of a similar nature.
While I don’t mean to imply in any way that a terror attack in the interim would validate Trump’s approach, in fact he is now kind of immunized if it should happen. The court and those who support their action now own this.
If a revised order were issued, it could buy time for Gorsuch to be seated, as I don’t trust the 4-4 split court. And it woudl force them to re-litigate their illegal restraining order which would double-down on this unconstitutiaonal attack on the Presidency.
Or the White House could issue a revised order.
That’s the best option. If they strike that one down issue another. Keep them running.
No that is a fools errand
Best option is rewrite
Trump could stop ALL immigration. I don’t know if there is enough popcorn for that.
Won't fly. Separate branch of government. President has no say.
Gorsuch will not be seated until April 15th at the earliest.
It is by no means obvious that Gorsuch will rule for the government in this case (nor is it obvious that Roberts or Kennedy will). He is a member, an obvious member, of the globalist class which is working so hard to destroy popular sovereignty in America, as are virtually all Federal judges and law school graduates since about 1975.
That’s the best option. If they strike that one down issue another. Keep them running.
Agreed. SCOTUS at this stage is too risky and Dems will slow walk Gorsuch.
The broad, sweeping approach did not stick. It's the art of the deal. You start big and learn what your limits are.
Use the Dems playbook and go the incremental route. Issue another less sweeping EO. If the 9th Circus obstructs, issue another, and another.
Let the public see how politicized our courts have become.
Well of course the court didn’t mention the part of the statutes that grant sweeping power to the president. If they did they would have to rule against the Seattle judge.
I agree with you and Judge Napolitano that going straight to the Supremes is the best course. The 9th’s ruling is so unconstitutional Trump should be able to get a 5-3 ruling to uphold the ban.
there’s a hook in that law that allows the President to stop ALL immigration.
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.