Posted on 06/03/2017 11:16:18 AM PDT by COUNTrecount
SCOTUS needs to issue a stay
FRIDAY, JUNE 2, 2017
ORDER IN PENDING CASE
16-1436 TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL. V. INT'L REFUGEE ASSISTANCE, ET AL.
The respondents are directed to file a response to the petition for a writ of certiorari on or before 3 p.m., Monday, June 12, 2017.
In addition to the cert petition, the Solicitor General filed TWO requests to have stays lifted. One request directed to the order imposed by the 9th Circuit, the other directed to the rder imposed by the 4th Circuit.
It wouldn’t surprise me, the way things are going right now.
Hearing him rebuke President Trump’s critiques of the courts which have struck down his travel order is appalling.
Gorsuch apparently feels that the judiciary is above reproach.
The one who ought to recuse herself is RBG, considering all of her anti-Trump comments.
Praying that President Trump will soon have the stay lifted and have his duly Constitutional auspices reestablished so that he can properly screen those who seek to do us harm.
NO!!!!
The Constitution defines the jurisdiction of SCOTUS. Marbury v. Madison was decided on this issue, could Congress modify the jurisdiction of SCOTUS? No. The Constitution defines SCOTUS jurisdiction, and either the constitution controls, or a law contrary to the constitution controls. Given a conflict in source of law, the superior source (between Constitution and law) is Constitution.
If RBG doesn’t recuse herself we will know this is not gonna end well. JMO.
I pray all is not lost and that we at least can count on the Supreme Court.
I am concerned if Gorsuch doesn’t recuse, he will try and boast his independence from the POTUS.
Something about this guy I don’t trust and I am getting pretty sick as everyone else of the POTUS being the world’s frigging punching bag.
They decided pretty quickly on the Bush presidency much Algore’s dismay. This is every bit as important.
You express my deep concerns precisely.
I have serious doubts about Gorsuch.
He strikes me as an elitist and I worry about his roots in Colorado.
Like you, I am beyond exasperated and disgust at how our magnificent POTUS is continually eviscerated here at home and abroad. President Trump represents the LAST HOPE the free world has left to survive—and perhaps even thrive. All should be down on their knees, thanking the Dear Lord for bringing him forward to lead us at this pivotal point in history. It truly is heartbreaking that a wonderful patriot, like President Trump, loves his country and all of us so much that he is willing to absorb all of this constant abuse. Instead of profound appreciate and respect, he is threatened with unrelenting efforts to demean him, delegitimize him and worse.
The Constitution defines the jurisdiction of SCOTUS. Marbury v. Madison was decided on this issue, could Congress modify the jurisdiction of SCOTUS? No. The Constitution defines SCOTUS jurisdiction, and either the constitution controls, or a law contrary to the constitution controls. Given a conflict in source of law, the superior source (between Constitution and law) is Constitution.
Here is the text of Article III Section 2.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Marbury only held that the Congress could not expand or restrict the court's Original jurisdiction. You win the point anyway though. Since the plaintiff's are states, the Supreme Court can claim original jurisdiction.
We’re not alone in how we feel. I tuned into Mark Levin’s 6/2 radio podcast on my iphone today and it really hit me.
He talks about how alone the President is and that the federal courts, congress, executive branch and media are all against him.
It was a very depressing reality. He pleaded with his listeners to please support Trump, speak up, act, make phone calls, etc. before we lose our nation.
I broke down and cried.
Well, better late than never, Mark.
I can't win on that point. The plaintiffs aren't states in these cases, they are individuals and organizations. In the 4th Circuit ...
... six individuals and three organizations--subsequently filed their operative complaint challenging the Order under the INA and the Establishment Clause, and moved to "enjoin[] [the Order] in its entirety." D. Ct. Doc. 95, at 1 (Mar. 11, 2017); see C.A. App. 254-258. The individual respondents are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents who claim that the Order will prevent or delay a foreign-national family member from entering the United States. Four individuals--John Doe #1, Jane Doe #2, John Doe #3, and Paul Harrison--allege that Section 2(c) would prevent family members from obtaining visas. C.A. App. 213-214, 245-252. The other two--Muhammed Meteab and Ibrahim Mohomed--allege that family members would be denied or delayed admission under the Refugee Program. C.A. App. 249-250, 252.
One organization, the Middle East Studies Association of North America, Inc. (MESA), alleges that Section 2(c) will prevent its members abroad from traveling to the United States for conferences, deter U.S. members from conducting work abroad, and prevent foreign scholars from attending MESA's annual meeting in the U.S. C.A. App. 213, 243-245. The other two--the International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP) and HIAS, Inc.--principally provide resettlement services to refugees and assert injury based on the refugee provisions. C.A. App. 210-213, 235-243.
If there was a colorable argument that the cases were SCOTUS original jurisdiction, I believe the argument would have been advanced in the District Courts.
“Trump has access to the same information from the FBI, CIA and NSA.”
OK — to a point. But the only info Trump has access to is info the FBI, CIA and NSA have chosen to share with him. And we know how helpful they’ve been to him in the past. It’s a case of “you don’t know what you don’t know” and Trump doesn’t know what he doesn’t know.
My bad. I thought these were the cases filed by a couple of state’s AG’s. Now I remember Trump rewrote and reissued his EO.
In the 9th Circuit case, plaintiffs below are the State of Hawaii and Dr. Ismail Elshikh. The state of Washington sued on EO-1, and as far as I can tell, the administration abandoned litigation of that when it issued EO-2.
Arguably, this case is MORE important. They acted fast on the election case to meet election contest deadlines, even though the constitution anticipates failure to meet those deadlines.
At any rate, SCOTUS can act fast when it wants, it can slow walk when it wants, and it can abdicate when it wants. I see it as a failed institution, for many reasons. But, they and their cohorts in the other branches have lots of power, so my objections are worthless.
CJ Robert’s “reasoning” that it’s not their job to undo elections can’t be used against President Trump’s EO now, can it?
I only wish that the court would not just smack them down, soundly, but that it would rebuke the judges who issued these rulings so contrary to the rule of law, and decide that they cannot decide national security matters in the future. The Supreme Court has the ability to oversee the federal judiciary, not just issue rulings.
This one may be 6-3 or 7-2. It is open and shut and maybe the libs will want to keep some credibility. But maybe not. We will see.
What’s sad about the court rulings is that Trump could have said, “I don’t think Muslims are compatible with the US and create a danger to our country” and issued an order that he would exclude them from the US under the law. It didn’t matter what he said on the stump, or whether it was a Muslim ban (it wasn’t). But the lower courts brought in a constituional aspect to it that doesn’t apply to foreigners. Ridiculous, and it will be slapped down thoroughly and persuasively, but the press won’t report it accurately and the stupid democrats won’t understand anything other than that a conservative court ruled that Trump can ban muslims and be a bad person.
Scalia was very friendly with Ginsberg. It did not matter.
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.